Domestic Violence

Baroness Gale: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What further measures they are planning to end domestic violence against women.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are committed to tackling domestic violence. In response to this horrific crime, the Government passed the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. Building on the new legislation, we shall publish the second national report and comprehensive national delivery plan for domestic violence at the end of this month.

Baroness Gale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her reply and congratulate the Government on the work that they have done in trying to alleviate the terrible problem of violence against women. Does she agree that, if boys were taught from a very early age and had a continual education in school and the community to respect girls and women, that would help to alleviate domestic violence? I believe that some schemes already exist. Could the Minister say what the result has been of those schemes?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend is right. Obviously, respect for women and girls has to be a key part of the agenda, and the Government have been working across different departments to ensure that the issue is tackled not only by the Home Office but through education and in other areas. I shall be happy to write to my noble friend on the success of the schemes that we have put in place and place a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, could the Minister also confirm that the legislation will act just as swiftly and heavily against violence against men as it does against women? Is she aware that there are certainly occasions when, in a domestic circumstance, violence occurs against men as well?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am happy to confirm that the legislation is gender-neutral. We all know that there is violence against men. I am sorry to have to say to the House that it is sometimes held up as an issue for some ridicule, but it is a very serious issue, and we need to tackle it.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, is the Minister aware that domestic violence has the highest level of repeat victimisation of any crime? I declare an interest in that I am a member of the Commission on Women and the Criminal Justice System, which has produced a number of reports and recommendations. Will the Minister look at those recommendations and see how the problem could be addressed by different parts of the criminal justice system?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, 89 per cent of repeat victimisation is against women, which is something that we need to tackle. I am happy to look at the recommendations mentioned by the noble Lord and see whether there is anything further that we can do.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, as this is International Women's Day, I am sure that the Minister will join me in praising the valuable work of organisations such as Refuge, Women's Aid and the NSPCC in providing much-needed help to the victims of domestic violence. What discussions has the Minister had with such organisations to promote close working relationships with government on the issue?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I totally endorse the noble Viscount's comments. The work of those organisations is very important, and we have worked closely with them over a number of years. They have been absolutely critical in helping us to develop our policy and strategy.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there appears to be a wealth of anecdotal evidence from the relevant areas that some of the gravest offences committed against partners in domestic circumstances—mainly women, of course—never find their way to the criminal or civil courts, due, no doubt, to the fear of reprisal, family pressures and considerable economic dependency? In the circumstances, does she agree that in many cases such victims can be helped in practice only by enhanced support for specialist social services agencies?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, of course we are worried about the fact that there is much going on that we do not know. That is precisely why we have put in place special measures, including special courts, to enable us to address those issues. On top of what the Government can do, we are working with other agencies, including social services, to see what other support we can put in place to enable the victims of violence to make their condition known.

Baroness Uddin: My Lords, I echo the congratulations afforded to Women's Aid and Refuge in particular for their dedication over a tremendously long time. Does my noble friend accept that, although it is true that men suffer from domestic violence, it is overwhelmingly women and children who tend to suffer the most? Also, will she address the issue of women from minority groups? Does she agree that the number of women reporting violence has increased over a period when women have enjoyed economic independence and that those facts are related? What are our Government doing to ensure that women who are most vulnerable at that time of their life are afforded economic empowerment and support, as well as other measures to protect them from violence?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right: one in four women faces significant violence, and two women die every week. Those are serious figures. She is right that more people are coming forward. That is partly a result of the activities of government and other agencies, which are encouraging women and others to come forward because we feel we need to tackle the issue. One explanation may be women's greater economic independence, but there are other explanations. We need to do all that we can to ensure that women and men are supported in coming forward and that the criminal justice system takes every care to deal with the issue sensitively.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, although the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, is congratulating this Government, we have been working on the issue in this country for a long time? The UK was the first country to acknowledge, in relation to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, that violence against women did exist. Our example, by showing that we were not afraid to admit that it happened, helped many other countries in the world to acknowledge the position. Does she agree, however, that there is still a long way to go to change attitudes?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right, but it is also important to point out to her that, following the legislation in 1976, nothing was done by government on this issue until we came to power in 1997. I am proud of this Government's record on developing the first cross-government strategy for tackling domestic violence.

Children: Smoking

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to target smoking by children.

Lord Warner: My Lords, on International No Smoking Day, I am pleased to say that the Government have made good progress in reducing the number of young people who smoke. Our comprehensive tobacco control strategy to tackle smoking has helped to reduce smoking rates in young people aged 11 to 15 from 13 per cent in 1996 to 9 per cent in 2004. Among other initiatives, the Government will soon be consulting on increasing the age limit for selling tobacco from 16 to 18. We will also look at increasing sanctions on retailers who persistently sell tobacco to children.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Ninety per cent of smokers start smoking before they reach the age of 18. In fact, by the age of 15, 21 per cent of children are regularly smoking, which I think is staggering. Does my noble friend agree that, given that a third of child smokers want to quit, it is vital to the Government's tobacco strategy that smoking cessation programmes are targeted at children? I refer particularly to access to nicotine replacement therapy for child smokers and peer education for potential child smokers.

Lord Warner: My Lords, my noble friend is right. I am pleased to say that NHS Stop Smoking Services are available to children as well as adults. More than 6,000 young people under 18 years old set a quit date through NHS Stop Smoking Services between April and September 2005. There are many local initiatives to help young people. We have changed the age restrictions on nicotine replacement therapy products so that children over the age of 12 are now free to use nicotine gum and patches to help them quit smoking.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I and many others have a considerable interest in ensuring the effectiveness of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002. What resources are the Government devoting to ensuring compliance with that Act? Moreover, in the face of the fact that tobacco companies now are not entitled to target young people with their advertising, what are the Government doing to campaign to ensure that young people do not take up the smoking habit?

Lord Warner: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, we have a wide-ranging tobacco control programme, which includes successful media campaigns. Our tobacco products are highly taxed. We are supporting advertising to stop encouraging people to take up smoking. We are doing much to stop the supply of cheap smuggled tobacco. We have a large range of policies, and I am happy to write to the noble Lord with more details.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, smoking is a very expensive pastime, as I know. Do the Government have any idea where children get the money from to buy the tobacco? That seems to me the most obvious place to start to try to stop children smoking.

Lord Warner: My Lords, possibly we are the victims of our success in growing such a successful economy under this Government.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I recognise the extent of the problem, and I do not want young children to smoke and continue smoking, but to what extent do the Government know that the children who smoke are involved in a culture in their family of smoking and, indeed, if not encouraged are not discouraged from smoking by their parents?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I do not have any data on that, but we know from research that young people are influenced by the milieu in which they operate—both their peers and families. My noble friend's statements are therefore probably quite right.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, what percentage of children who smoke smoke cannabis?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I do not think that the department has evidence on that, but I shall check and write to the noble Baroness if we have data. We continue to recognise the health harms associated with cannabis use, and because of that possession remains illegal.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, why are the Government faffing around on the issue? Given their current policy on tobacco smoking, why do they not just ban the sale of tobacco and tobacco products?

Lord Warner: My Lords, we still live in a democracy.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that, in countries that have introduced comprehensive bans on smoking in public places and places of work, there has, contrary to expectations, been no displacement of smoking to the home, where obviously children would be affected, and that in Ireland the number of smokers who have banned smoking in their own home has gone up as a result of the ban on smoking there?

Lord Warner: My Lords, my noble friend is right. I am glad to confirm the information that he has provided.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, is it fair to construe from the noble Lord's first Answer that it is the view of the Government that children of 16 and 17 are insufficiently mature to decide whether to smoke tobacco?

Lord Warner: My Lords, we will consult on that issue. I remind the noble Lord that among the countries that have a minimum age for tobacco sales are Finland, Sweden, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and a number of others.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the most horrible cancers that someone can get is cancer of the face and jaw? Will he congratulate the team from St Bartholomew's Hospital who go around schools? They spend 10 minutes at assembly showing the children some very nasty pictures of what happens if they smoke, and the impression that is made on children is apparently very long-lasting. Are there any other teams that could do the same thing at school assemblies?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I join the noble Countess in extending my congratulations to that team. There are a large number of local initiatives where adults are trying to bring the dangers and consequences of smoking to the attention of young people. That is one of many local initiatives doing good work.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords—

Lord Rooker: My Lords, we have just had nine supplementaries on that Question. We must move on; we are into the sixteenth minute.

Children: Healthy Eating

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they remain committed, as stated in the White Paper Choosing Health, to legislating for all forms of advertising and promotion in the event that self-regulation fails to restrict the promotion of foods high in fat, sugar and salt to children by 2007.

Lord Warner: My Lords, the Government remain committed to reviewing in 2007 the success of measures undertaken in relation to the balance of food and drink advertising and promotion to children. If those measures have failed to produce change in the nature and balance of food promotion, we intend to take action through existing powers in new legislation to implement a clearly defined framework for regulating the promotion of food to children.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I know that we are awaiting Ofcom's suggestions for some control over what is advertised. Those will be welcome. They are out for proposal, and they are already rather late. What is outlined is unlikely to do more than scratch the surface of a truly mammoth problem. Do the Government recognise the extent to which children are increasingly bombarded with a diverse torrent of marketing techniques that encourage the consumption of foods that are high in fat, sugar and salt? One example of that would be the so-called "big five", which are prominent in the 77 per cent of food advertising spend that takes place during children's viewing time. Will the Government therefore recognise the incredible need for legislation to curb all forms of advertising and promotion directed at children, particularly the many devious methods recently highlighted in the Which? report?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I am sorry, I thought we had finished; I must have nodded off slightly.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Warner: My Lords, I thought that I made it clear in my Answer that we had not resiled in any way from our statements in Choosing Health. We await the work from Ofcom to see whether we need to proceed.

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, is it not as clear as can be that the manufacturers and retailers of crisps and sweet fizzy drinks are in business using every legal means available to them to stuff the maximum quantity of fat, salt and sugar down the throat of as many children as they can get away with, regardless of the impact on their health? Since those people are no more likely to desist voluntarily from their lucrative trade than are the purveyors of other noxious substances, should we not proceed straight away to impose a severe system of prohibitions and penalties on them, following further down the path usefully indicated by the School Food Trust?

Lord Warner: My Lords, my noble friend might like to look at Hansard, where he will see that I answered a Question about salt and the work of the FSA last week. As I recall, one of the examples that I gave was Kellogg's, which has voluntarily reduced by 30 per cent the salt in its products, which are consumed by children.

Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a strong case for at least going for a best-practice scenario in the foreseeable future? Will he also confirm that there cannot be a one-sided approach to tackling childhood obesity? It must be co-ordinated with numerous other activities. When will we get a report that will at least co-ordinate best practice in all three departments?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Lords is right about tackling obesity. We need a multi-pronged attack that relates to diet and exercise, on which much guidance has been provided. The FSA has been working hard with retailers and food producers on a voluntary basis to try to reduce the input of salt, sugar and fat in particular products.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the enormous benefit to Lady Harrison of my daily perusal of the recipes in the Times and the Evening Standard, which I then make at the weekend? Does he share with me the concern that so often such recipes, de rigueur, add sugar to savoury dishes and pair salt with pepper? Is it not time that we turned our attention to that form of advertising salt and sugar, which might be eliminated from the diet?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I am sure that we all have to exercise restraint when reading attractive menus.

Earl Howe: My Lords, it is 15 months since the publication of the White Paper, Choosing Health, and the Government have still not decided on the criteria that they will use in determining whether sufficient change has taken place in the nature and balance of advertising to obviate the need for legislation. When do the Government plan to take that decision?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I said in my Answer to the original Question that we would stand by the timetable that we set out in Choosing Health. There has been some slippage in Ofcom's timetable for the development of its activities in that area. We are committed to the review, and we will set out our criteria at the appropriate time.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, what are children taught in school about nutrition and what are parents taught in parenting classes? Will the Government make more effort to make available universal and affordable parenting education and support, so that parents can know what they should tell their children?

Lord Warner: My Lords, dietary issues are part of education in schools, and the Government have done a lot to support and strengthen the help and advice available to parents.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, does the Minister think that he sent out the right signal in his Answer to the important Question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe? As the mother of three teenage children, I doubt that he did.

Lord Warner: Well, my Lords, as I recall my Answer, it was to assure the House and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that we were standing by the commitments that we made in Choosing Health. I thought that was rather a good signal to send.

Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, recognising the importance of reducing and, I hope, eliminating childhood obesity, by analogy with the previous Question on smoking by under-16s, does my noble friend agree that there is no evidence of a direct correlation between the consumption of confectionary generically, as distinct from consumption of individual brands as a result of advertising? Secondly, and more important, is the problem not the intake of calories, but the failure to burn up those calories through healthy exercise?

Lord Warner: My Lords, there are several points here. I think that we all agree that more exercise by many of our young people is appropriate, but I thought that we had also agreed that many of our young people and their parents required help to ensure that products do not contain excess sugar, salt or fat and that we should try to use advertising in a way that is helpful, rather than unhelpful.

Women and Work Commission

Baroness Massey of Darwen: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How they will respond to the recommendations of the Women and Work Commission report, Shaping a Fairer Future.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Government are determined to take action to address all causes of the pay gap highlighted in the Women and Work Commission report and will issue an action plan within six months. The commission will come together again in one year to comment on progress.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that positive reply. Does she agree that, despite the Equal Pay Act of 30 years ago, there is still a gap in women's aspirations and pay? What strategies, such as careers advice, can be adopted to encourage girls to widen their horizons?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend that there is still an unacceptable pay gap. We in government are trying to do all that we can to narrow that gap. My colleagues at the Department for Education and Skills have welcomed the commission's report. Indeed, we have taken steps to implement the 14 to 19 and skills strategies, as well as the proposals outlined in the youth Green Paper, which was issued last year. We hope that that will enable young women to take better advantage of the opportunities that there are.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, you only have to come to this House to see the amazing contribution that women make to our society. I am particularly proud on International Women's Day to be wearing a ribbon in the suffragette colours, not least because Emmeline Pankhurst was a Conservative candidate. The Conservative Party welcomes many of the recommendations of the Women and Work Commission. However, its proposals will take time, and we still have to face the problems of women who are in employment now. Can the Minister explain how that will be tackled in the discrimination law review?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I commend what the noble Baroness says about this being International Women's Day. I agree with her about the amazing contribution that women make in the House, not least the fact that four women put down the Questions today and at least two women had the advantage on this side of answering them.
	We are doing all that we can to make sure that discrimination issues are taken up. The noble Baroness will know that the Sex Discrimination Act applies to the public sector and the private sector. However, the obligation to promote equality of opportunity falls on the public sector. That is only right, as public authorities are responsible for ensuring that the employment practices and services that they offer are provided as efficiently as possible, affording the taxpayer good value for money. I would just say to the noble Baroness that, of course, Emmeline Pankhurst was entitled to make a mistake at the end of her life.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the most shocking statistics in the Prosser report is that, although there is a 17 per cent gap between men and women in full-time work, there is a gap of more than 40 per cent between full-time work and part-time work? That is the really horrifying figure for me. Does she also agree that part-time work is for most women a positive choice that allows them to balance working life and caring responsibilities and so should be celebrated, not punished? How will we change the attitudes of employers? Too many in our society regard part-time work as pocket-money work that is not to be taken seriously.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I ardently agree with my noble friend's comments about part-time work and the valuable contribution that it makes. Some people have suggested that those of us who have the joy of being on the Back Benches are engaged in part-time work; I think that the contribution that women make in the House demonstrates how valuable that can be. We will continue to do all that we can to make sure that proper value is given to part-time work and that it is celebrated, because it makes a huge contribution to the well-being of the country.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, the report had plenty of recommendations encouraging women to go into jobs that they might not otherwise have thought of, but it did not have many recommendations about how to help women to get to the absolute top in the professions that they chose. Does the Minister share my regret that the commission did not recommend equal pay audits in the private sector as well as in the public sector? Does she agree that such transparency in all businesses would let us see where equality is really working and where it is just being paid lip-service?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I absolutely understand the importance of the noble Baroness's question. She will know that the commission was not unified in its view on how best to progress this. The Government understand why, because of course we have to work together energetically with the private sector to make sure that the gap is narrowed. If we are successful, as I believe that we will be, in demonstrating to the private sector the wonderful contribution that women make in the workplace, using the public sector as an example, it would be a very foolish private sector employer that did not avail itself of the excellent and extraordinary talents that women bring to the workplace.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, does the Minister agree that more flexible working for both sexes—I stress both sexes—would be one way of getting rid of the gap between the earnings of men and women? It would also enable much better use to be made of the younger period for having children, because, as we all know, most people now put off having children to a later age.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, so I commend very much what the Government have done on paternity leave, as well as maternity leave, to enable both sexes to discharge their proper duties in caring for children and enabling that to be honoured in a way that makes sense for our communities. Indeed, some of the most successful businesses, both public and private, make flexible working available for their staff, and that has undeniably been to their benefit.

Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, the report gives welcome recognition to the disadvantage that women suffer in caring not only for children but for disabled or older relatives. The Government have made welcome progress on that front, but what other progress do they plan to make in enabling access to pensions for women following caring responsibilities and in enabling them to combine full-time or part-time work with caring duties?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that the issue has been given anxious consideration by the Department for Work and Pensions, among others, and it will continue to be an issue that is addressed. We very much understand her point about caring for older people and the difficulty that women face, in particular, when they have to care for children at one end of the scale and older people at the other. We shall certainly keep the matter very much in mind. Bearing in mind the time, I should be more than happy to write to her about the specific details of her question.

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Bach.
	Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order: Clause 1 Schedule 1 Clauses 2 to 17 Schedule 2 Clauses 18 to 28 Schedule 3 Clauses 29 to 31 Schedule 4 Clauses 32 to 51 Schedule 5 Clause 52 Schedule 6 Clauses 53 to 78 Schedule 7 Clauses 79 to 85 Schedule 8 Clauses 86 and 87 Schedule 9 Clause 88 Schedule 10 Clauses 89 to 103 Schedules 11 and 12 Clauses 104 to 107.—(Lord Grocott.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Council Tax (New Valuation Lists for England) Bill

Read a third time.
	Clause 1 [Dates on which new valuation lists must be compiled for England]:

Baroness Hanham: moved the amendment:
	Page 1, line 7, leave out from "on" to end of line 8 and insert "a date prior to the making of any order under section 5(4) and (4A) of that Act.""

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, so far as we are concerned, this is the remaining part of this legislation. I am moving just one amendment to this very small Bill, which has engaged us all in a great deal of interesting discussion.
	The remaining matter on the table today relates to the possibility that the Government may wish to make amendments to council tax banding without a revaluation having taken place or before it takes place. Under the Bill, revaluation is being postponed for a number of very good reasons, not least of which is the fact that Sir Michael Lyons has yet to report. We do not disagree that there should be a postponement. In fact, we think that postponement should be eternal and that, if revaluation goes, it should never come back, but that will remain a disagreement between us and the Government.
	However, one area is already a legislative possibility—that is, that council tax banding can be changed and amended within the period before revaluation. The amendments that could be made to council tax value were agreed under the Local Government Act and are now on the table. But it is inconceivable that council tax banding could be done without current and real valuations, and in this amendment we say that no changes should be made to council tax banding unless and until there is revaluation. That is the purpose of the amendment. It is short and to the point. I beg to move.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I wish I could be as short and as succinct as the noble Baroness. I appreciate, as she said, that this is a short Bill, but it has given rise to significant and very helpful debates. For that reason I am very grateful that we have had the opportunity to return to this matter at Third Reading. I am afraid that I shall have to reiterate some of the arguments I put in Committee and on Report about this amendment because it remains technically unworkable and, in effect, unnecessary. I believe that in concept it is unwanted not just by the Government—noble Lords would expect me to say that—but also by the noble Baroness's own party and by local councillors and taxpayers who, as a result, would find themselves with a council tax system that is tied for ever to increasingly out-of-date valuations with no legislative scope for reform.
	Again, I have to explain, as I did in Committee and on Report, why the amendment leaves us with an unworkable system. Two major flaws are at issue and I shall deal with each of them in turn. The first relates to the concept of a compiled list and what it means specifically as defined in the Local Government Finance Act 1992. The amendment is based on retaining that notion. The second flaw is the removal by this amendment of any mechanism for a specific date to be set for revaluation.
	Through this amendment, subsection (1A) of the Bill would read:
	"A new list must be compiled, in relation to billing authorities in England, on a date prior to the making of any order under section 5(4) and (4A) of this Act".
	The essential point is that "compilation" means in law the coming into force of the list. It is followed up by a very strict process and a timetable which attaches, not least, to the publicising of the list. That is the problem. In layman's terms, it means not simply that the Valuation Office would be required to revalue properties at the prevailing values at the time, without there being at that stage any changes to bandings, but that a new statutory valuation list must come into force for each billing authority in England before any changes can be made to the band values, to the number of bands or to the proportions across bands. The new compiled list would have legal force, and properties would have to be reascribed at their new values to the existing council tax bands, and council tax paid accordingly. That is what the law requires us to do.
	The effect would be disastrous. As I explained both in Committee and on Report, this would inevitably mean that the vast majority of properties would move up the bands, probably by more than one band, by the pure virtue of house price inflation. More than that, we would see a bunching of properties towards the top end of the scale, dramatically reducing the level of differentiation between properties of different values and people of different means. I know that noble Lords opposite are very concerned about that. Inevitably, it would build inequity into the system and would penalise many of our most vulnerable taxpayers.
	The logical sequence of the process should be revaluation to give us up-to-date values, reform informed by that and reflecting changes which in banding are necessary and fair, and then compilation, the coming into force of the list. Almost perversely, the amendment dictates revaluation, compilation and then reform and I am sure that is the opposite of what the noble Baroness intends. The technical effect of the amendment is perverse; compilation is surely the culmination of the process and not the mid-point.
	I remind the noble Baroness that on Report she said,
	"I believe that it would be short-sighted in the extreme to plan to have reforms as an afterthought to revaluation." [Official Report, 1/3/06; col. 264.]
	I agreed then and I agree again because reforms should not and cannot be an afterthought to revaluation. That is the situation that this amendment would predicate. It would require new, revalued lists to be compiled and bills to be issued to taxpayers, because the legislation says they must be, before any reforms could be implemented or, if I understand the intention behind the amendment, even contemplated. The noble Baroness went on to say that the amendment was,
	"intended to bring an order to [revaluation], starting with the basic value and proceeding to the banding and then to the issuing of bills." [Official Report, 1/3/06; col. 265.]
	That may be the intent, but it is not the effect.
	The second, and very significant, technical drawback to the amendment is its removal of any provision to set a specific date for a future revaluation. The current drafting of new subsection (1A) reads:
	"A new list must be compiled, in relation to billing authorities in England, on 1 April in each year specified by order made by the Secretary of State."
	This amendment removes the concluding phrase,
	"specified by order made by the Secretary of State".
	As other parts of the Bill remove the previously planned revaluation date of April 2007 and the 10-year maximum cycle of revaluation after that, we are left with no mechanism through which any future revaluation can be initiated; and because of the link that the amendment makes between revaluation and reforms, there is no possibility of ever reforming the system in the very way that the intention behind the amendment envisages. So if we were to accept the amendment, far from bringing certainty to the process—we spent some time talking about the need for that in Committee and on Report—it would lock up the present system for ever, with no possibility of either revaluation or reform at any time in the future.
	Beyond those technical problems, why do I suggest that the amendment is unnecessary? I recognise the noble Baroness's true intent and what she is seeking to achieve. She said on Report :
	"The whole point of the amendment was to ensure that the council bands could not be changed between now and a revaluation, or unless a revaluation was proposed". [Official Report, 1/3/06; col. 264.]
	The idea is to ensure that revaluation and reform always go together as one package with reform being informed by a prior revaluation.
	I tried my hardest during that debate to reassure the noble Baroness that I cannot see that there would be a situation where the two would not go hand in glove. To revalue without reforms would lead to perverse changes in the balance of the system of the sort I have just described, and to reform without revaluation would be extremely difficult as the necessary information on which to make informed decisions would not be available. The amendment is unnecessary because it does not add anything useful. It takes away valuable flexibility in the system that may, in some unforeseen circumstance, be needed in the future.
	Finally, I also said that the amendment was unwanted; not just by the Government but by the noble Baroness's own party. In Committee, I quoted Mr Pickles, who was speaking from the Opposition Front Bench on Second Reading in the other place. He was espousing his party's belief that revaluation is unnecessary and that inequities in the system could be remedied, if need be, without revaluation. He said that matters relating to council tax banding and people's ability to pay, for example,
	"could be taken care of by adjusting the banding".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/11/05; col. 45.]
	I am afraid that this amendment directly contradicts, and renders unworkable, the policy which Mr Pickles described.
	I have repeated myself, and I hesitate to go on doing so, but I must stress once more that the Government have always been clear about the link that they see between reform and revaluation. It was expected that Sir Michael Lyons's work looking at reforms to local government finance would be fed into the 2007 revaluation.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Before she sits down, will she take the opportunity to put on the record how she sees proceedings over the next six months, as regards the results of the Lyons review, and how they are going to feed into processes for council tax? The nub of the concerns expressed from both sides of the House during the passage of these Bills has been a combination of uncertainty over local government finance because of the Lyons review, and the absence of parliamentary scrutiny of any future revaluations by this House. While I understand and have a certain amount of sympathy with the amendment, with the Conservative Benches seeking more reassurance, they are misguided in seeking revaluation in this case because they leave no power in place to order a subsequent one. Noble Lords will know that, while we on these Benches do not support this tax, if we are to have it, then power to revalue is going to be necessary at some point.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am grateful for that intervention and will address that point in what I have to say. I am coming to the broader politics now.
	To finish my thought on the link between having gone ahead with revaluation and the way it would have fed into the Lyons report, as originally conceived—as strictly about local government finance—it would have informed that procedure, and there would have been that link. When his remit was extended, in our statement on 20 September on the way forward we emphasised that there was a need to postpone revaluation to give time for his recommendations to be properly considered, consulted on, and for a properly developed package of reforms to be brought forward with a date for revaluation. In a shorthand way, that explains what we think will happen. The remit was extended for good reason. As Sir Michael recognised and explained in his interim report, there have been such a lot of changes in structure and organisation, not least the financial arrangements for local authorities' three-year budgets and so on, that it was logical to extend the remit. Having done so, it made perfect sense to postpone revaluation so that it can be informed.
	We cannot predict what Sir Michael Lyons will come forward with. It will happen at the end of the year and may well involve primary legislation. We cannot possibly know that at this point. But, whatever happens, it will precede an open debate on revaluation and the implication of what he comes forward with. Running alongside that—he is looking at local government functions, as the noble Baroness knows—we are conducting a much wider debate on local government as a whole and the whole set of relationships, not least with neighbourhoods.
	We will bring forward a White Paper in July, which will be part of this wider debate, into which Sir Michael will feed his own thoughts, obviously reflecting on where he has reached with his deliberations. But the two processes will go side by side. I am absolutely confident that it will be an open process. The noble Baroness has expressed concerns about the nature of the debate. It will be addressed by debates not only with all partners in local government but in this House and in the other place, alongside what we intend to do.
	I conclude with one final important matter. I believe that because of the nature of the amendment the noble Baroness should be reluctant to return this to the other House in this way. She is a very credible politician. I hope that the arguments I have brought forward, which have been across the spectrum, will have convinced her and that she will feel we have had a good debate on the Bill, as I would have intended. But I believe that the amendment is unworkable and unnecessary and I hope very sincerely that she will agree with me on that point.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for her reply. It is very much along the lines that we have heard throughout the course of this legislation. My concern remains that without an amendment such as this there is still the possibility of tinkering taking place with council tax bands in a way which is not coherent with the future consideration of local government finance.
	It is essential that a sustainable long-term solution to local government finance is found. We are in the middle of an enormous amount of consideration about the way local government is going, about its structures and functions and its finance. If we are postponing the revaluation—which we are in this Bill—it seems to me to be perfectly logical that we say for the other element of the value of property, which as far as concerns local government finance is the council tax bands, that nothing should be done to those until this whole mess of pottage is sorted out. For those reasons I seek to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 186.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
	Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Andrews.)
	On Question, Bill passed.

Civil Aviation Bill

Report received.
	Clause 1 [Aerodrome charges: noise and emissions]:

Lord Bradshaw: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 1, line 7, leave out "may" and insert "shall"

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, we turn to noise for the first few amendments. Amendment No. 1 would insert "shall" into new Section 38(1) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 because large aerodrome operators should have a duty to monitor noise and to fix charges in respect of aircraft which exceed noise limits. Since we discussed this matter, I have visited Birmingham airport, which has very good noise monitoring arrangements. It has devices that measure when aircraft deviate from flight paths and it charges aircraft which do that. The money goes into a trust fund, which is distributed for the use of the local community.
	However, the airspace of Birmingham airport is shared with Coventry airport. Coventry airport does not have a noise regime. Noisy aircraft use Coventry. In that case—I am sure that there are other cases around the country—there is unfair competition. One airport says to operators, "You shall obey the noise regulations"; another airport, sharing the same airspace and flying over the same towns, does not have such a regime. It, therefore, attracts older, noisier aircraft, with obviously detrimental effects on the living conditions of people who live there.
	Amendment No. 2, which is in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie and the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, makes reference to the proportion of more "noise made by aircraft". This goes back to a point that I made in Grand Committee—noise does not rise proportionately. Noise is measured on a logarithmic scale, which means that it rises much more steeply than on a normal scale. An increase of a few decibels means a doubling of noise, whereas raising the fine from £100 to £200 is not necessarily proportional or the way to deal with the problem. That is also the purport of Amendment No. 5, which states:
	"Charges, in relation to noise, shall be proportional to the noise emitted".
	Under these small amendments, large-scale aerodrome operators must have a noise regime, which should contain penalty charges which are proportional to the noise emitted by aircraft. I beg to move.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, my name is attached to Amendment No. 2, but I support the thrust of all the amendments in the group. It is very logical that we will have a lot of discussion today on noise and penalties on the amount of noise. To give stronger reference in the legislation to noise is very important, which is why we fully support the amendments.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken on this issue, which we also covered in Committee. It has been suggested that aerodrome operators will not voluntarily use the provisions in the Bill to fix their charges by reference to noise or emissions of aircraft. The Government take a different view of that. The provisions have been brought forward to provide clear powers for airports to fix their charges by reference to aircraft emissions as well as aircraft noise. I am confident that they will make use of them.
	The power to charge by reference to noise has been available to airports since 1982, and as noble Lords know, many of the larger airports already make charges: Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Birmingham—mentioned by the noble Lord—Manchester, Luton, Nottingham and East Midlands all operate within these provisions. He identified an airport which does not. Within the framework of the Bill it will be possible for it to do so, and the airport will be encouraged. Further, he will recognise that he is contrasting a smaller airport with Birmingham airport, which operates twice as many flights. I do not say that air traffic for Coventry is negligible, but Birmingham is much more significant and already complies.
	The policy is flexible because of the diverse nature of the operation of airports. We have over 140 licensed airports in this country and necessarily the Bill will apply to them all. That would include Tiree airport, which in 2004 accommodated only 868 flights. As anyone who has visited Tiree knows, it would be difficult to suggest that aircraft noise or emissions create an enormous problem. But Amendment No. 1 would put an absolute duty on airport operators to fix their charges with reference to aircraft noise and emissions. However, the problem is that we would then impose a heavy regulatory duty on an airport as small as Tiree and a number of others which may be a little larger, but not much. That is why I argue for the flexibility now provided in the Bill.
	I recognise that noble Lords may be concerned that some airport operators might not wish to take up these powers even when local circumstances suggest that there is a strong case for them to do so, but new Section 38(4) of the 1982 Act contained in Clause 1 gives the Secretary of State the power to direct, by order and subject to negative resolution, specified aerodromes to use their powers in this clause. While I do not prejudge the position regarding Coventry—it is an instance identified by the noble Lord as a result of his visit—if the Secretary of State had a clear indication that Coventry ought to comply with these requirements but was not doing so, the power is available to make an order to insist that it does so. Airports themselves have been using the power to set noise-related charges for over 20 years. Should there be a problem, we have the reserve power.
	Under normal circumstances, decisions on the charging regime should be a matter for the airport concerned. Those decisions will be closely linked to the noise control scheme set up by the airport itself to address the effects of its operations on its locality. Therefore I must emphasise that airports are all too well aware of the needs of the area in which they are situated—and this is especially true of the larger airports. They are subject to intense local pressures because of the obvious challenges that airports can present at times to the environment. They are concerned to meet local needs in this regard. That is why we leave it to them to make judgments, while holding the reserve power. The noble Lord has pressed his case again today after presenting it eloquently in Committee and he has been supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. However, I hope he will recognise that the Government's position is entirely reasonable.
	Government Amendment No. 3 in this group is a minor, technical amendment. It may be useful if I explain it now. Clause 1 inserts a new Section 38 into the 1982 Act. Subsection (3) of the new section defines noise and emissions requirements. The amendment simply ensures that a cross-reference is made to both mentions of those requirements, in subsections (1)(d) and (2)(d), rather than solely, as at present, to subsection (1)(d). In due course, therefore, I hope that noble Lords will feel that this amendment is reasonable and will offer the Government their support. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, the noble Lord is relying on the good will of the airports and their sense of duty—

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, with respect, may I remind noble Lords that this is Report?

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, and he is right that we should probably have specified the airports that we wished to include. It would probably have been quite a long list. His instance of Tiree, which is obviously a tiny airport, is at one extreme of the argument. I am seeking to make the Secretary of State exercise his powers to direct specified airport authorities to fix their charges in such a manner. I am not seeking to put this into place at Tiree but at a big airport near one of the largest conurbations in the country.
	Obviously, the wording of my amendment might be slightly defective, but it is important to press on the Minister that people should not get away with environmental damage when their competitors are constrained by noise regulations, and that the charges should reflect the actual problem of noise. It is a huge problem in this country, which many people bear, and to which I do not think that he has given adequate consideration. In light of his reply, I acknowledge that my amendment might be defective, and if so, I shall rely on him to come back on this issue. In the mean time, I want to ask the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 141; Not-Contents, 128.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Lord Bradshaw: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 1, line 8, leave out from "in" to "by" and insert "proportion to the noise made by aircraft and"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Page 2, line 16, leave out "subsection (1)(d)" and insert "subsections (1)(d) and (2)(d)"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Page 2, line 29, at end insert—
	"( ) The Secretary of State shall review the maximum noise limits on aircraft taking off from designated airports and shall take account of the target of reducing the perceived external noise of new aircraft by 50 per cent by 2020 compared to 2000, and shall report to Parliament in such manner as he thinks fit at regular intervals."

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, this amendment is designed to give statutory force to the voluntary targets set by the United Kingdom aviation industry published in its commendable sustainable aviation policy. It would ensure that the aviation industry was held to its self-professed targets. If it is not held to them, the sustainable policy will be perceived as nothing more than a public relations stunt. The amendment is also designed to ensure that those companies that have pledged to take these important steps to achieving a substantial reduction of external aircraft noise are not disadvantaged by competition from those foreign-owned airline operators that have not made such commitments.
	When we tabled these amendments in Grand Committee, the burden of the Minister's reply was that the character of air travel meant that the Government's hands were effectively tied by international laws and conventions. Until recently, all civil aviation operating in the EU had to meet Chapter 3 standards, which were agreed as far back as 1977. From this year all new aircraft must comply with Chapter 4 standards, representing a reduction of 10 decibels on Chapter 3 aircraft. Crucially, however, there is no agreed date for phasing out Chapter 3 aircraft. The benefits that can be enjoyed with the introduction of newer, significantly quieter technologies are therefore being lost because of a lack of legislative compulsion to phase out the ageing fleet.
	Since aircraft are replaced on average every 20 to 35 years, we risk squandering the benefits new technology can offer to those communities adversely affected by aircraft noise because of our reluctance to insist that aircraft are subject to truly progressive targets. It is important to note that in Europe the aircraft are replaced on average only every eight years, allowing greater uptake of improved technology. That is a big difference.
	The timescales provided by the International Civil Aviation Organisation do not reflect the current advance of technology. To have nearly 30 years between the start of Chapter 3 and the introduction of its successor is, frankly, ridiculous. It suggests that international standards for aircraft noise follow technological developments rather than drive them, a situation reflected in the fact that the new chapter targets are already outstripped by current improvements in aircraft technology, which are already achieving a reduction in external noise of 20 decibels. In fact, Rolls-Royce reports that modern aircraft can achieve a reduction of 18 to 24 decibels below the Chapter 3 standard. Chapter 4 requires only a 10-decibel reduction. These technological improvements demonstrate that there is a capacity to reduce noise further.
	Targets should be driving the industry forward, not chasing to catch it up. Imagine what the aviation industry could achieve with real legislative compulsion. The introduction of long-term target-setting will complement what the Government are trying to achieve by sanctioning the use of noise- and emissions-related landing charges, and will drive forward technological advance in the industry. The sustainable aviation document produced by the UK aviation industry demonstrates a willingness to take on such technology, and the Government need to hold it to those standards.
	To date, the industry has focused on the reduction of engine noise. That is sufficiently low that attacking noise from the airframe, which may be more challenging to reduce, is becoming as important. Current technology suggests that that target is achievable, but there is agreement that it will not be possible without radical changes to aircraft design. Further improvements in technology will therefore be harder to achieve, and will require a much stronger lead.
	Without putting words into his mouth, I realise the Minister will be reluctant to accept this amendment, but I urge him to recognise its purpose. The ICAO is unlikely to introduce standards that are not already achievable, yet, without the imposition of searching targets at some level, we will not provide sufficient drive for the type of technological innovation the industry requires. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Baroness avoided the temptation to put words into my mouth but she predicted fairly accurately what I would say.
	Both with the previous amendment and with this one, I hope that noble Lords opposite are squaring these unfortunate attempts to increase regulation with the general drive to get rid of red tape and reduce regulation that we hear about so constantly from the opposition Benches when they are on a free rein. However, when it comes to a specific area, they seek to gain support for their position by increasing regulation by the Secretary of State and government in a way we have never done and do not intend to do on this occasion.
	The Government use their powers under Section 78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to set departure noise limits on aircraft taking off from the designated airports, Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted—as I mentioned in the previous debate—and those limits are already kept under review. It is our obligation to keep under review the impact of the number of flights on the ground and to bear in mind exactly what the noble Baroness says—that we need to keep up with modern technology and drive it towards providing quieter aircraft.
	Changes to those limits were last announced in December 2000—just over five years ago. A further review of departure noise limits was then carried out by the Environmental Research and Consultancy Department of the Civil Aviation Authority, overseen by the Department for Transport's Aircraft Noise Monitoring Advisory Committee, which includes representatives from the designated airports' independent consultative committees. This review was published in March 2003. I do not therefore believe that this amendment would make any difference to the Government's current practice in respect of keeping the departure noise limits under constant review, as, indeed, is the Secretary of State's duty.
	Amendment No. 4 also refers to the UK aviation industry's target, stated in its sustainable aviation strategy launched earlier this year, to reduce the perceived external noise of new aircraft by 50 per cent by 2020, as compared to 2000. The Government welcomed the release of the strategy, and very much hope that the industry will manage to meet it. But I do not believe that it is appropriate to make the Secretary of State responsible for policing a target adopted voluntarily by the industry, nor to give that target statutory force.
	The Government continue to press for improvements in aviation technology; reduction of noise at its source is one of the four strands of the ICAO "balanced approach" to dealing with aircraft noise. As aviation technology has improved, aircraft have become quieter. The noble Baroness referred to the improvements that Rolls-Royce is effecting. But older aircraft, though their environmental performance may not be as good as the most modern aircraft, meet ICAO technical standards, and remain part of airlines' fleets. The UK is obliged under its international agreements to allow these aircraft to continue to operate in the UK.
	There is a danger that the opposition amendments, which supposedly can be effected by unilateral action by the United Kingdom, are not mindful that air travel is bound by significant international obligations.
	Previous administrations and the present Government have accepted that it would not be compatible with the UK's international obligations to set a daytime noise limit so low that most of the large long-haul aircraft, certificated to ICAO standards and legally entitled to operate in the UK, would not be able to operate. Similarly, the night-time and shoulder period departure noise limits must be broadly compatible with the night-flying restrictions that we set under Section 78(3).

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that apart from the local authorities around Heathrow and other airports, no one supports this amendment?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend strengthens my argument in his usual astute and informed way, and I am grateful for that comment, although I was hoping to let the Opposition down a little more gently. He has made an absolutely critical point.
	Any new departure noise limit that limits or reduces access of aircraft to airports would be subject to directive 2002/30 on noise-related operating restrictions, which we have incorporated into UK legislation by the Aerodromes (Noise Restrictions) (Rules and Procedures) Regulations 2003. The phasing-out of older aircraft needs to take place as part of an international approach to dealing with aircraft noise. In fact, I fail to see how we can carry out these strategies without reference to international obligations. I share with the noble Baroness the objective of reducing aircraft noise. I delight with her in examples of British industry making good progress in this area. We all want to see aircraft becoming quieter. So does the industry; it is all too well aware of the pressures from localities around airports, and it is in the industry's interests to reduce aircraft noise. We are working with the grain without seeking to impose regulation, which would be a regulation too far. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his intervention. The joy of being in opposition is that you can move amendments and get matters discussed, and that is half the purpose of the job of the Opposition. Whether anyone agrees with the amendments, they are there to be shot down if necessary, or at least to extend the debate on certain matters.
	The amendment asked that the Government should take account of the target of reducing external noise and report on it from time to time. Maybe I was a bit long-winded by going through all the possibilities for new aircraft and the process and the technological improvements that there are likely to be. The amendment was asking the Government to take note of the targets and perhaps from time to time to tell Parliament how likely they thought those were to be achieved. We will discuss this more today. There is greater concern about the amount of aircraft noise, and I do not think that it behoves any of us to try to deny that. More people are living under flight paths, and larger aircraft are in use. Whether the international and European bodies will it or not, perhaps Parliament should from time to time take note of the effect on people who live under the aircraft flying into its airports. That is really what the amendment was about. Since I do not think that I am winning, I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bradshaw: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Page 2, line 32, at end insert—
	"( ) Charges, in relation to noise, shall be proportional to the noise emitted."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 2 [Regulation by Secretary of State of noise and vibration from aircraft]:

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 6:
	Page 2, line 42, leave out subsection (2).

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I must return once again to the highly controversial issue of night flights. The issue was debated at some length in Grand Committee, and despite the Minister's assurances I remain unconvinced of the necessity or the wisdom of the change in the present system proposed by Clause 2(2). As noble Lords are aware, aircraft night noise is currently controlled by the combined operation of a movements limit and a noise quota system. Amending Section 78(3)(b) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 in this way would empower the Secretary of State to discontinue the association of limits on the number of night movements at Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and elsewhere.
	I must declare an interest as leader of Essex County Council and that Stansted airport is situated in that county. The removal of the movements limit and the reliance on the quota count system will have a devastating consequence for the millions of people who live under major airports' flight paths. The quota system is highly technical and is often incomprehensible to the people it is meant to protect. There is no official index for night noise in the UK. The noise limit is calculated by using Leq, or level equivalent, which is officially recognised during the day between 7 am and 11 pm. That fails to take account of the fact that noise has vastly different implications at night.
	Level equivalent is a measure of noise energy and is worked out by averaging the noise level over a 16-hour day and expressing that as a continuous level. Its shortcomings are illustrated by the fact that a single Concorde on departure has the equivalent noise energy of 120 Boeing 757s. Thus, a Boeing 757 departing every two minutes for four hours produces the same level equivalent as two minutes of Concorde, followed by three hours and 58 minutes of silence.
	Under the quota system, all aircraft are rated according to their noise on take-off and approach, and then banded into quota count categories that are three decibels apart on an exponential scale. A limit is then placed on the total number of points in a six-month season. I am explaining this in a technical way, because it is an important element of this issue. The fundamental conceptual flaw behind the way of regulating aircraft noise is the assumption that the degree of disturbance and/or annoyance caused by noise depends only on the level of the overall noise dose in terms of sound energy emitted.
	This method is perverse, because it fails to take any account at all of the importance of how many and how frequently flights are permitted. The same total noise exposure can be achieved with a few noisy aircraft or a larger number of less noisy ones. Furthermore, whether those aircraft are bunched together or spaced at long intervals during the night period does not make any difference to the noise dose. By removing the night movements limit, the implication is that as aircraft become less noisy, more flights can be accommodated within the same noise quota. Under the quota count system, one Boeing 747, rated as QC2, could be replaced with four Boeing 777s, rated as QC0.5.
	Less noise does not necessarily mean less disturbance. I repeat: less noise does not mean less disturbance. Consequently, the system is wholly inadequate for assessing the disruption of sleep caused by the impact of a relatively small number of noise events during the night. Cumulatively, those noise events may not break the noise quota, yet they may result in a person being disturbed on multiple occasions during the night.
	It is imperative that we retain the movements limit on night flights. It is not only effective, but is easily understood, transparent and open to validation. Importantly it provides protection for those people who live in close proximity to airports, but not necessarily under flight paths. It protects them from the associated problems of ground noise, which the quota system alone cannot properly address.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, why, when previous Conservative Governments were in power, did they not do precisely what the noble Lord is advocating?

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I can absolutely assure the noble Lord that a future Conservative government will. I want to respond a little to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, in relation to something that the Minister said. Of course we believe in less regulation, but in things like noise and pollution emissions there has to be regulation. If we are to have the better environment that we all want, I am afraid that there has to be regulation to achieve that—and we have to have some different ideas and policies. Certainly, the Conservative Party under its current leader is determined to put some of those issues forward. I am putting forward some of them from the Front Bench today.
	In maintaining the movements limit, we do not inhibit any possible advantages to be gained from a noise quota system. Instead, we simply ensure against its significant disadvantages. As I have argued before, the two mechanisms must be seen as complementing each other. Together they provide the most effective protection for communities living near airports or under flight paths. I beg to move.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I very much support what the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has just said. The lives of people who live around major airports, particularly the London airports, are nightly made a misery by the present limits. Any attempt by the Government to change those limits by fiddling the system—I can only describe it as that—so that the overall noise limit is averaged out and there can be more take-offs and landings during the night hours, will add to the misery of millions of people. I reiterate the noble Lord's point: it is the occasion of being woken up repeatedly that leads to a bad night's sleep, disturbed behaviour by children and, obviously, less efficient working by the people who are woken up. Also, if you have a lot more flights, you will have a lot more traffic and the noise will spread further and further.
	What are these night flights for? Very few of them, I suggest, are connected with business. They are almost all for leisure travellers. Perhaps the needs of leisure travellers, or pressure from the industry, should be put beneath the quality of life with which I hope the Government are concerned. I very much support what the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said. We shall wait to see the outcome of the vote on this amendment before we say anything more.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I, too, support the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, touched gently on health matters. It is known that stress can cause immune-system damage. I wonder whether, if we increase noise in a cavalier way, we will also increase the debts of the already stressed National Health Service and of the Department for Work and Pensions, as people will not be able to work because they are suffering from stress-related diseases. And so it goes on. I support the amendment.

Lord Bridges: My Lords, I should be grateful if the Minister would kindly explain the nature of the powers entrusted to the Secretary of State by Clause 2, regarding aircraft noise; as I understand it, the amendment would remove those powers. I have a local reason for asking that, as I happen to live in East Anglia, where there is nearby a large concrete runway rebuilt some 10 years ago for the United States Air Force, which no longer uses it. This is the former RAF Bentwaters. It is not a registered airport and there is no regular aviation. The site has largely been sold to nearby farmers, who use it for non-intensive agriculture; for example, the hardened aircraft shelters are now used for rearing ducks, with some success.
	However, the runway is still there and is still used for occasional, unscheduled and maybe illegal flights by light aircraft, including visiting aircraft from the Netherlands. This frequently disturbs local residents—although not me, as I live some way off—who ask the planning authority what measures it is taking to limit the noise and frequency of these flights and to control the times at which they occur. The local authority says that it has no staff to monitor these local flights and that the residents should supply information—accompanied, it hopes, by a photograph—giving the aircraft number and type and the time of the event. Few citizens are able to oblige with that information.
	Am I right in supposing that it would be open to the local residents, under the existing framework of the Bill, to ask the Secretary of State to use his power under Clause 2 to exercise some control over what is happening, given the lack of interest shown by the planning authority? It appears from the Explanatory Notes accompanying the Bill that that may indeed be the case, but I should be grateful for confirmation. If I am right, the amendment would reduce the powers of the Secretary of State, which I should regret in this case, and I am therefore inclined to vote against its adoption.

Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar: My Lords, I declare an interest as someone who lives very near Heathrow between the two runways. That does, however, mean that I may know what I am talking about. I am not altogether sure that that normally applies to people in the Department for Transport, certainly where noise is concerned, and that is the case not only under this Government but under previous governments, too.
	I am by no means convinced that aircraft will get quieter because, until now, all noise measurements have turned out to be inaccurate and I suspect that these will, too. Above all, noise measurements do not take account of the whine caused by the displacement of air, which, so far as I am concerned, is worse than the noise of the engine. Therefore, the idea that the Government can nonchalantly decide to give themselves power to multiply the number of night flights by any amount seems to me an extraordinary dereliction. As the Minister knows, there is a strong movement throughout Europe and this country to abolish night flights altogether, but this Government now want to multiply them by goodness knows how many. So I strongly support my noble friend's amendment.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I want to ask my noble friend about a comment that he made in Committee. I believe he said that these changes, if adopted, would not come in before 2012. He went on to say that,
	"the intention behind the Bill is to create the necessary flexibility to take account of new technology and changes to the position adopted by people in relation to night flying".—[Official Report, 5/12/05; col. GC 90.]
	I think that other noble Lords have made similar comments. There is grave suspicion about this. Why do we need to bring in legislation if it is not needed for six years? There is grave suspicion that "flexibility" means more flights, and I urge my noble friend to think again about this. Frankly, he could bring in regulations or even another Bill in five or six years' time, when there may be a lot more understanding of the effect of noise on people. I think that it is very premature to do this now.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I can see that the Government have a difficult balancing act here. Aviation is one of our growth industries and many jobs are involved in it, and, although we all want to be green, I do not think that people would be very happy if we saw substantial job losses. I can see why the Government want to ensure that we continue to maintain Heathrow, in particular, as our central hub. Many in Europe would be very pleased to get their hands on the flights that might be pushed their way if they could not go to Heathrow and they would be pleased to see job growth in their countries rather than in the UK. So I can see that a balance has to be struck.
	I also live under the flight path and am troubled by the noise early in the morning. I declare an interest in that I am a non-executive director of National Air Traffic Services. I have an interest in this subject and on a number of occasions have asked why more flights appear to be coming in earlier these days than used to be the case. I am not sure on which side of the line we are in regard to the regulations.
	The point that has been put to me is that many incoming flights are not simply holiday flights; people are flying in on business and, in particular, they are flying in from the Far East. The one thing that I know from working within NATS is that, as soon as the aircraft get close to the UK, there is a dash to be first in line to get down on to the concrete. I have long argued that there is a case for greater international co-operation to ensure that planes fly at a slower speed across continents so that they come in on schedule, rather than arriving half an hour earlier than required and having to be stacked, with all the consequential problems that that involves.
	Are the Government initiating efforts to try to have greater co-operation along those lines to ensure that there are savings in fuel, by having people fly at slower speeds than they do currently? Pilots are given complete freedom to fly as fast as they wish as long as they arrive at the destination on time. Improvements could be made to avoid having more flights arriving early in the morning. I warn the Government that this issue causes a great deal of angst among the public in west London. If they do not take note of it, people will suffer as a consequence. I want to see greater efforts made by the Government to avoid the foot-in-the-door scene and even greater growth in the number of flights coming in at night in the future. Until I have heard what the Minister says, I am unsure which way to vote.

Baroness Tonge: My Lords, I support the amendment. When I was Member of Parliament for the Richmond Park constituency, this was by far the biggest issue for my constituency and surrounding areas. Sometimes I wonder whether the Minister and his colleagues are just shrugging and thinking, "It's west London again, here we go: precious people, living in a precious part of London". It is very precious, but our lives are ruined by the activities at Heathrow airport. If he does not believe me, I wish he would accept my invitation—Ministers in the other place never accepted it—to spend a few nights in the constituency in the summer time with the windows open so that he can experience the situation. I can offer very comfortable accommodation, even though a little noisy, and if he is seriously disturbed in the early morning, I promise to bring him a cup of tea. How about that?
	I have two more serious points. One is that I have never, ever seen a serious argument putting forward how our economy would suffer if night flights did not occur. I have never seen the figures. People bandy about the fact that it is essential for UK plc to have businessmen and tourists arriving at Heathrow at 4.30 in the morning, but I have never seen the figures to back that up. I think we need them. Secondly, some of my constituents took their case for a good night's sleep to the European Court of Human Rights and won against the British Government. Then, of course, the Government appealed with some rather spurious figures and the case was thrown out.
	I beg the Minister to take this matter seriously. It affects people's well-being and, as we have heard from the noble Baroness on the Cross Benches, in many cases it affects people's health too. If they are not careful, it will affect the Government's votes.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, first, I shall deal with one or two peripheral matters. I am not sure that I can accept the noble Baroness's invitation at some undisclosed time in the summer. However, I shall certainly make it my business to be acquainted with the level of noise at Heathrow. Of course, the problems do not affect only Heathrow, precious though west Londoners are, but other parts of the country are also affected by airport noise which creates difficulties for those on the ground. In the eyes of the Government, of course, all voters are equally precious.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, asked me about Bentwaters. We have no role for Bentwaters as a civil aerodrome in the air transport White Paper because, as he described it, it is a marginal facility. I assure him that there is no question of Bentwaters featuring in any aspect of expansion plans for air travel.
	I am afraid that the powers of the Secretary of State to intervene under Section 78 apply to designated airports, like London Gatwick, Stansted and Heathrow. Other airports could be designated, but obviously Bentwaters would certainly be, if not last on the list, one of the last to be considered. So the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, must address this issue to the local planning authority and those concerned with the local environment, because it is not for the Secretary of State to intervene.
	The trouble with this debate—as when we discussed this in Committee—is that it appears to make Clause 2 an exceedingly contentious provision. That reflects a disappointing level of mistrust over the Government's intentions towards this clause. A frequent accusation—it has been made again today from several parts of the House—is that the Government intend to use the amended powers immediately to introduce night flying restriction regimes—at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, later this year—on a completely different basis from that on which we consulted. It is not so. We carried out the consultation in good faith. We may not have had the direct benefit of the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, to that consultation, but her people—west Londoners—were certainly well represented. How on earth could London Heathrow play its part in this without having reference to such interests? We are not operating on a different basis from that consultation.
	Of course night flights are a sensitive issue. We all recognise the threat presented by aircraft noise, and want to keep it within limits. If it is suggested that there is no reason at all for night flights, perhaps noble Lords might address that to other airports in direct competition with our major airports. Sometimes the debate is presented as though not only the United Kingdom is an island, but Heathrow also exists in an island of air travel in which any restrictions on airlines and air transport can be made without economic consequence for it. Heathrow is in competition with major European airports; I mentioned Schiphol and Charles de Gaulle, but there is also the recent enormous development in Madrid. This competitive position is not one which we can lightly influence adversely. We certainly need to take the interests of our fellow citizens who live close to airports into account, but the suggestion that it would be easy and without consequence to ban night flights from Heathrow is, I am afraid, rather facile.
	My noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe was right when he said that Heathrow was far from being involved in night flights simply for leisure travellers, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, suggested. By the way, I am not sure that quality of life does not have to balance reasonable tranquillity on the ground at night with the obvious demand of our travelling public, substantially increasing in number year on year, for the enjoyment of travel by air.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that most people go on holiday once or twice a year? These people would have to put up with the noise every single night of their lives when they are not on holiday.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I understand that, but I do not think that the British public necessarily look at the question of travel in quite these specific terms. My noble friend Lord Brooke identified that Heathrow night flights are largely business flights. In fact, the major night flights at Stansted are not leisure flights and those at Gatwick are freight. In both cases we are talking about economic considerations and not just, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, seemed to indicate, travellers bent on pleasure—and, in any case, their interests need to be taken into account.
	I want to emphasise that the Government are not about the business of changing the basis on which they carried out the consultation on night flights and the development of the legislation. I think it was suggested at one stage that there is nothing in the Bill of any advantage. The Bill is needed—and my noble friend Lord Berkeley wondered why we were legislating now—because, for the benefit of the nation, we need to increase the capacity for regulation on air travel. We need a Bill at this point to take account of what we all recognise is a rapidly changing situation.
	I emphasise to the House that we have listened to the representations in Committee. I cannot speak in very precise terms to my subsequent amendment without being out of order, but the House will recognise that the Government do not intend to operate these fresh provisions until 2012. That will be the burden of an amendment that I hope will commend itself to the House in due course.
	It is not fair for the House to suggest that the Government are not acting in good faith with regard to what we recognise is a very important issue. Of course I understand the anxiety expressed in all parts of the House about the problems for local residents, but a limit on movements alone would be a very blunt instrument of regulation. It certainly would not control the amount of noise at night, nor could it influence the types of aircraft used at night. The louder an individual aircraft is, on the whole the greater the likelihood is that it will disturb people. I know the other calculations—the frequency of the aircraft and how long they are above the area where the noise imprint is made. But noise quotas are set alongside the present movement limits to drive the use of the quietest aircraft available. Part of the Bill's purpose is to create this essential structure so that we are able to balance the needs of those requiring air travel against people who are entitled to a good night's sleep, free from disturbance on the ground.
	Setting a night restrictions regime by reference to noise alone could lead to an immense increase in the number of flights permitted, depending on how that limit was set. Equally, it could be open to the Secretary of State to use the powers available under Section 78 to set movement limits a great deal higher than their current level. In either case, the bone of contention would not be the powers themselves, but how Ministers used them. Of course it would be possible to apply for judicial review on how these powers had been exercised by Ministers. The Government intend to maintain strict controls on night flying and to set those controls by both limiting aircraft movements and setting a noise quota until such time as a different method is more appropriate. We have no view at this stage on how the criteria could readily be improved.
	I have previously suggested that it would be possible to make an effective night regime which controlled noise by a noise quota alone. The quota would be set at such a level that the quietest planes available must be used to enable the number of night flights to remain the same as previously. Noise quotas can be an effective limiting factor because, in themselves, they set a ceiling on the number of flights. As the noble Baroness emphasised in debating the previous amendment, they also provide an incentive for airlines to use the quietest aircraft available. One argument that stakeholders have made in favour of movements limits and against setting night restrictions by reference to overall noise caused is the idea that it is each individual incident of an aircraft flying overhead that disturbs someone, rather than the cumulative noise over a period of time.
	Our research suggests that reaction to noise is subjective. It varies greatly. Despite extensive research, there are still differing views among both those who suffer noise and the scientific community about whether a single loud noise event or the accumulation of smaller noise events creates a greater disturbance. Research has suggested that the incidence of sleep disturbance is especially associated with the loudest noise events—in particular, those that produce more than 90 decibels.
	The night noise criteria that we have proposed as part of the consultation—which we are honouring—on night-flying restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports relates to the 90 decibel footprint of the noisiest aircraft currently operating at each airport. Such noise insulation is intended to mitigate the impact of each flight, as do the noise quota limits, by encouraging the use of quieter aircraft.
	I digress from the question of noise because I want the House to recognise, as I am sure that every noble Lord does, that this is a complex and difficult area in which to regulate. The idea that it is easy to impose a blanket ban without severe consequences for both those who wish to travel and, if I may say so, the economic contribution made by the whole industry of airlines and airports to our economy is wrong. We cannot take the matter lightly. I seek to demonstrate that the Government take a balanced approach to controlling and mitigating the noise impacts of night flying at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. We do not seek to use the flexible powers immediately, nor do we believe that any future government would use them unreasonably when they are brought into force in due course. If they used them unreasonably, the Government, through the Secretary of State, would be subject to legal challenge.
	However, the Government remain convinced that it is right to amend current legislation in this way. We are doing so after and in line with full consultation. The consultation involved all those interests identified today as necessary to the consideration of the issues. Once again, I emphasise that there is no intention on the part of the Government to introduce any fresh regulation before 2012, but that is the subject of a later amendment. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and I thank all the participants in the debate, which was very good. The Minister spent a lot of time talking about a ban on night flights. Although many people would like it, my amendment was in no way suggesting a ban on night flights. I was suggesting that enough is enough; we do not want any more. No one living near an airport wants more night flights. I have met lots of people and lots of representations have been made to me. They are concerned about the numbers of flights, not always the noise factor. Obviously they are also concerned about the noise factor, but they do not want the number of night flights increased in any way. I think that I have had the most representations on that issue of any since I have held the transport portfolio. There is tremendously strong feeling about it, as has been indicated by the debate.
	People will still worry, no matter when the Government bring those extra powers into force and even if they give a cast-iron guarantee that the Prime Minister will jump from the top of Westminster if they do so. I still think that people do not want the Government to have these new powers at the moment. They would rather the situation remained as it is. Let us see what happens with noise and night flights in the next few years. From my point of view, we should remove the Government's ability to have this new part of the legislation, and leave the thing as it is. I would now like to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 167; Not-Contents, 127.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
	Clause 3 [Power for aerodromes to establish penalty schemes]:

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 8:
	Page 4, line 15, leave out from "shall" to second "to" in line 16 and insert "seek the advice and consent of the Airport Consultative Committee before making payments equal to the amount of those penalties for purposes which appear to the Airport Consultative Committee"

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 10, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 13. Managing the impact of airport operations, in particular the question of aircraft noise, has been at the heart of much of the debate during the passage of this Bill so far, and today has been no exception. I recognise that reconciling the needs of national and local interests is complicated, as the Minister has pointed out. However, effective management of the impact of aviation on local communities is essential to maintaining the quality of life and confidence of those living in close proximity to airports. A fundamental part of managing successfully this complex interaction is ensuring the inclusion within the process of those communities most affected.
	The Bill has been criticised for its propensity to allow airport operators too much power and local people too little. In particular I remain astonished by the licence it gives airport managers to establish and operate noise and mitigation schemes. At all UK airports except Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, the airport operator is responsible for deciding what the appropriate noise levels are and then monitoring and reporting on them, in effect enabling the airport operator to act as policeman, jury and judge. Even in the case of the designated airports, despite the overarching responsibility of the Department for Transport for ensuring compliance, the actual monitoring is conducted in-house by agents of the airport operator. Consequently there is considerable mistrust among local communities in relation to the fairness, objectivity and transparency of these in-house arrangements for reporting on aircraft noise and emissions, and for the recording and handling of complaints from members of the public regarding aircraft noise and other environmental impacts.
	It is no wonder that people feel frustrated and angry. In effect they are rendered powerless. The Minister referred in Committee to the existence of airport consultative committees. However, the reality is that beyond providing the facilities for consultation, the airport operator is under no legal obligation to act on or do anything about what is consulted on. The Minister has assured us that all is not as permissive as it might seem. In Grand Committee he highlighted the vast swathes of international and European law that determine the noise levels considered acceptable. The House already knows our thoughts on whether these noise levels are actually acceptable, but that is another debate. Most important, the Minister confirmed that:
	"Where there are problems, efforts should certainly be made to resolve them at the local level if at all possible. This is the best level at which both to monitor and to call attention to the issues that arise. Local monitoring is best".—[Official Report, 5/12/05; col. GC76.]
	This amendment is in complete accord with the Government's thinking. It seeks to strengthen the role of local communities and address their frustration and powerlessness by granting local authorities a role in monitoring and auditing the noise impact of both designated and non-designated airports. In the interests of public perception and trust, it is important that these types of initiatives are enforced with robust checks and balances to identify issues arising and to deal with them accordingly.
	The proposals on noise management set out in the Bill, and the existing noise regime applicable to designated airports, identify airports as the authority best placed to manage policing and monitoring functions day-in and day-out. It is crucial that, in addition to national regulations, the potential role of the local community, which is best placed to react to local noise impact, is not overlooked. Existing arrangements at designated airports include local mechanisms such as a consultative committee and informal arrangements for periodic review, as at Stansted airport, by the local authority of the airport's flight evaluation unit. It is important for effectiveness and public trust that the interface between the airport and the local community is at a more satisfactory level. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the way in which she moved her amendment. She said that her thinking was in complete accord with the Government's—not quite, but it is a good try. If we keep working at it, I am sure that we will get unity of purpose.
	Spending from designated airports' penalty schemes and non-designated airports' noise controls schemes is meant to fund projects that could add to the quality of life for the community around the airport. In making these provisions, the Bill reflects existing practice on the part of designated airports and the practice of some non-designated airports in making community donations. Where these arrangements exist, it is common to find that a community trust fund has been established to administer the grant payments, with local authorities and representatives of the airport's consultative committee generally included as trustees. It is also common practice for the consultative committee to be informed about the operation of the scheme. We think that this is a better model than the one put forward by the noble Baroness.
	The noble Baroness will note my reference to local authorities, and I know how keenly she admires and advocates their role in our national life. The problem with airport consultative committees is that a burden would be imposed on them that it is not appropriate for them to undertake: specifically, the requirement in each of these amendments that the consultative committee should consent to payments made under a penalty scheme. Airport consultative committees are just that—consultative. They are not decision-making bodies, and given the wide range of interests that are represented on them, it would perhaps be unreasonable to expect them always to reach a consensus on airports' use of penalty funds.
	The presence of members of an airport's consultative committee on a charitable trust set up to distribute payments received for breaches of noise controls is a different matter. If the trust has been set up for that express purpose, it becomes a decision-making body. We believe that, in practice, airports will continue to consult appropriately on the distribution of penalty scheme funds, including seeking advice from and providing information to the consultative committee, where one exists. We do not believe that it is necessary to put this requirement in the Bill, nor do we think that that is necessarily the best way to act.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in this regard the Opposition have totally misunderstood the purpose of the consultative committee, which, as he said, is to give advice? This amendment virtually gives it a veto, does it not? I think that that is entirely wrong and inconsistent with the purposes of the airport consultative committee.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend who, as ever, has expressed my argument more succinctly than I have managed to do. The amendment would give these bodies a power of veto, and we do not think that they are constructed in such a way as to enable them to exert such powers. In addition, not all airports have been designated for the purposes of Section 35 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. Therefore, not all airports will have a consultative committee to be involved in any noise control scheme the airport might establish. We would expect such airports, which are likely to be small, to make proportionate arrangements to ensure that their noise control scheme—including payments from penalties, which they would enjoy to a lesser degree—was reasonable and transparent. It is important to ensure that the legislation is sufficiently flexible to deal with the widely differing circumstances of British airports and the arrangements they expect to make with their local community.
	This is a good shot on the part of the noble Baroness. I commend the obvious objective of having the penalty payments used for the benefit of the local community who are most directly affected by the noise and pollution that an airport inevitably produces. But as my noble friend says, we do not think that airport consultative committees can exercise a veto. What is more, no such bodies exist in many small airports.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister. He has, without blinking, responded to the amendment I did not move. That is not his fault—it is mine. I spoke to Amendment No. 10 and he, quite properly, responded to Amendment No. 8, but none of us seems to have noticed.
	I thank the Minister very much for his reply to my Amendment No. 8, which was grouped with Amendment No. 13. I still think that Amendment No. 8 would have been perfectly appropriate and the local community should still benefit from the airport trust in the way it does. However, I intend to withdraw the amendment and shall not speak to Amendment No. 10, although the Minister might like to respond to it. We will all get confused and bored if I go through Amendment No. 10 again and it appears in Hansard twice. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bradshaw: moved Amendment No. 9:
	After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
	"NATIONAL PARKS
	In section 60(3) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (c. 16) (power to give effect to Chicago Convention and to regulate air navigation, etc.) at the end of paragraph (e) insert "avoiding areas designated as National Parks"."

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I am giving the Minister the opportunity to offer us a few words of comfort. The purpose of the amendment is to draw attention, as I did in Committee, to the way in which the tranquil areas of this country are fast disappearing. I have some maps from the Campaign to Protect Rural England to show how these areas have diminished.
	I was told in Committee that there was no such legal term as "tranquil area" and that the amendment I moved then was invalid. I am seeking to preserve some areas of peace in this country from which noise is, as far as possible, excluded. The purpose of the amendment is to ask the Government to ask those authorities responsible for setting up air traffic routes that they should, as far as possible, avoid the national parks. There should be some areas of tranquillity.

Lord Soley: My Lords, I would love to know whether the noble Lord would extend that to trains and tractors.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, it certainly does not extend to trains or tractors. In fact, the noble Lord might agree that the increasing presence of aircraft flying over national parks is causing mounting distress. Trains have largely been accepted when they do go through national parks, while I am afraid that tractors are part of the country scene anyway, although they are not terribly noisy. But aircraft are extremely intrusive.
	Will the Government ask the authorities responsible for the routes that aircraft take across the country to avoid, if they can, national parks? We are seeking not to set a prohibition but to ask that there are some areas of tranquillity in our country. I beg to move.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for moving his amendment so persuasively. However, it will not come as a shock to him that I am going to have to reject his amendment.
	The greater part of England and Wales is covered by what is termed "controlled airspace". This contains a complex, multi-layered network of routes and airways established over many years to provide a safe and efficient flow of traffic to and from airports from ground level to the designated international UK airspace exit and entry points, as the noble Lord will know.
	There are a number of factors that have to be taken into account when designing airspace. Safety of design is paramount—and we have discussed that at previous stages. I am sure we are all agreed that that must be right. Fly-ability, complexity, air traffic controller workload, and environmental matters all are considered as well. However, government policy does not preclude overflight of national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty, as it is often impractical to do so.
	We understand the concern that noble Lords have expressed about protecting designated areas of the countryside from the noise and visual intrusion effects of overflying aircraft, although the aircraft noise levels will be relatively low. Section 70 of the Transport Act 2000 sets out the Civil Aviation Authority's general duties when exercising its air navigation functions, and specifies how any conflict in the application of these provisions is to be resolved. Section 70(1) makes it clear that the safe provision of air traffic services is the overriding consideration. The authority must also consider secondary issues, such as efficient use of airspace, the interests of stakeholders, environmental matters and, of course, national security objectives. In doing so, if there is a conflict in applying these considerations, the authority must apply them in the manner that it thinks is reasonable.
	The Secretary of State has given directions to the authority, under Section 66(1) of the 2000 Act, in respect of all United Kingdom airspace. These are concerned with, among other things, the environmental impact of air operations, and require the authority to perform its air navigation functions in the manner that it thinks best calculated to take into account the need to reduce, control and mitigate as far as possible the environmental impacts of civil aircraft operations, and in particular the annoyance and disturbance caused to the general public arising from aircraft noise and vibration, and emissions from aircraft engines. They also require the authority to take into account the need for environmental impacts to be considered from the earliest possible stages of planning, designing, and revising airspace procedures and arrangements.
	Where proposed changes to the design or provision of airspace arrangements or to the use made of them might have a significant detrimental effect on the environment, the authority must notify the Secretary of State of the likely impact and of plans to keep that impact to a minimum. Where those changes might have a significant effect on the level or distribution of noise and emissions in the vicinity of a civil aerodrome, they must also ensure that the manager of the aerodrome, its users, any local authority in the neighbourhood of the aerodrome and other organisations representing the interests of persons in the locality have been consulted.
	The Secretary of State has provided guidance to the authority under Section 70 of the Transport Act on environmental objectives to be taken into account when carrying out its air navigation functions. The guidance states that changes to airspace arrangements should be made after consultation only where it is clear that an overall environmental benefit will accrue, and where airspace management considerations and the overriding need for safety allow for no practical alternative. The guidance specifically notes that overflight of national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty is not precluded. Given the sheer area that they cover, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, will know—these AONBs and national parks cover about a quarter of England and Wales—I do not see how it could be otherwise that the guidance specifically notes that overflight of national parks is not precluded.
	The guidance does say, however, that the authority's director of airspace policy should, where practical, pursue policies that will help to preserve the tranquillity of the countryside. I hope the noble Lord will see that there is direction and guidance to ensure that the policies do try to preserve the tranquillity of the countryside where that does not increase significantly the environmental burdens on congested areas. As he will know, that is in line with the Government's aim of giving stronger protection to the most valued landscapes in designated national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. However, given the geographical constraints of the UK, the location of centres of population, the complex nature of the national traffic service route structure and its interrelationship with adjacent states and the associated international route structure, as well as the military training and danger areas, there is very little scope for air traffic to avoid specific areas on the ground.
	In the en route phase of flight—that is, the phase outside terminal airspace—any decision to introduce deviations in routes to avoid specific areas such as the national parks, as this amendment would require, would not be an option. It would require significant additional airspace to control flight profiles, and controller workload to manage such airspace would be significantly increased, leading to reductions in capacity and some safety concerns. From an environmental perspective, the impact of avoiding areas such as the national parks would be greater because aircraft would have to change power settings and configuration to fly less straightforward routes, leading to increased fuel burn and associated emissions.
	Where it is possible to avoid overflight of national parks and AONBs below 7,000 feet without adding to those environmental burdens on more densely populated areas, it clearly makes sense—and I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw—to do so. We want that to be on record. However, government policy will continue to focus on minimising overflight of more densely populated areas below this altitude. In accordance with long established government policy on national parks, we will continue to give priority to minimising the impact of aircraft noise on as many people as possible. We believe that would strike the right balance, which is what we are looking for.
	I hope that explanation of the reasoning behind the Government's policy, which has been that of successive governments, will convince the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and that he will withdraw the amendment.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. In tabling the amendment I was mindful of the fact that more and more aircraft are flying over national parks. The deregulation of the air market and cheaper flights have led to an increasing number of flights. I find it difficult to be convinced that the maximum effort is being made to avoid the national parks.
	The noble Baroness talked about safety being paramount. Of course, we understand that safety is a very big issue. However, I cannot believe that it is impossible to route aircraft away from places such as the Brecon Beacons, which are constantly being overflown, if real effort was put into that. I would like to press the amendment and take the opinion of the House simply to underline the fact that something ought to be done about these places if they are not to become like everywhere else—noisy. For that reason, I wish to take the opinion of the House.

Lord Haworth: My Lords, before the noble Lord does so, will he help me on one small point? I think I am right in saying that there are well developed plans to have a national park covering the South Downs. The South Downs are closely adjacent to Gatwick airport. A national park that covered the South Downs—of which I am strongly in favour as it would afford protection to that very valuable area—would comprise a very long rectangle along the southern coast of Britain. It seems to me very likely that the noble Lord's amendment would put Gatwick airport out of business. Will he help me on that?

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I certainly do not know the detail of the flight paths into Gatwick. However, we should avoid flying over the national parks if we can. I am not saying that they are no-go areas. I realise that there are demands for military flying and all sorts of things. However, I think that a real effort should be made in that regard. If the South Downs are designated a national park, and that means that flights to Gatwick have to vary very slightly their approach to or take-off from Gatwick, then so be it if we want a national park which people can enjoy. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 128.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	Clause 4 [Power for aerodromes to establish noise control schemes]:

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 10:
	Page 5, line 22, at end insert—
	"( ) Local authorities in whose areas the aerodrome (or any part of it) is situated are given the authority to—
	(a) monitor flight and ground level airport-related noise;
	(b) audit and monitor the effectiveness of noise control procedures at airports.
	( ) Aerodromes are required to demonstrate—
	(a) how issues highlighted by local authorities through their monitoring function have been taken into consideration; and
	(b) any subsequent mitigating measures adopted;
	and make such responses accessible to the public."

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I apologise to the House for the confusion that I have inadvertently caused. I have spoken to the amendment and I shall not weary the House by going through it all again. Perhaps the Minister can find his notes on the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Smith of Leigh: My Lords, first, I declare interests as director of Manchester Airport Group and leader of Wigan Council. I share the noble Baroness's views that as representatives of local communities, local authorities should play a key role in the monitoring of noise around airports; but I question the necessity for this amendment, because local authorities have existing powers to play a full part in those areas if they wish to do so—particularly regarding the role of environmental health officers. One of their roles is to monitor noise at all points within a local authority area, where they believe it contributes to a nuisance to local people. Clearly that is the case in relation to this issue.
	Local authorities, if they are smart, can also use the planning laws, particularly if there are plans to extend an airport—they can use Section 106 of those laws to reach agreements with airports to ensure that they can cement the relationship and have access to the airport monitoring information to make sure that they are being effective.
	The amendment also does not seem fully to take into account that airports are part of their local communities and, therefore, wish to co-operate with local authorities to make sure that airport noise monitoring is effective. That is the whole purpose of the earlier clause and I do not believe that the power provided in the amendment is necessary. Certainly, in relation to airports with which I am involved—Manchester, Nottingham and East Midlands—local authorities play a full part in the monitoring processes and we have an open-door access policy to ensure that local authorities have all the information that the airport has about noise, which they can use in any way that they wish.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. The noble Baroness in her opening remarks on the previous amendment was wise to say that she would not move Amendment No. 10. She should have heeded that advice. As a former aviation Minister, I entirely agree that local authorities have all the powers in the world that they could exercise here—and they do. It was a long time ago, but I remember consulting with the local authorities closely and the Department for Transport does that regularly now. Personally speaking, there is no point whatever in the amendment.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, particularly those on the Back Benches who have brought some sanity to the Front Benches when they get confused about which amendment we are discussing. My noble friend Lord Smith is well qualified to have identified the role of local authorities in relation to airports.
	As he rightly said, local authorities have a role when an airport applies for planning permission in respect of developments that it wishes to undertake, where it is not of sufficient strategic importance for the Secretary of State to call it in. They have power, in such a case, to make planning permission subject to conditions, as the Secretary of State has done in imposing a cap on the number of movements at Heathrow as a condition for the construction of Terminal 5. It is also possible for airports voluntarily to enter binding agreements with a local authority. Gatwick airport did exactly that with West Sussex County Council, when it undertook in 1979 not to construct a second runway before 2019. That agreement with a local authority was of the greatest strategic significance.
	Local authorities also have a statutory right to be included in the consultative arrangements made by airports designated under Section 35 of the 1982 Act, so they will have an opportunity formally to make their views known to the airport management. There is nothing to stop local authorities from carrying out whatever noise monitoring they might wish to—which was the burden of my noble friend Lord Smith's remarks—to inform their dealings with the airport in the context of their planning powers, consultative committee membership, or any other bilateral discussions.
	Along with all other stakeholders, local authorities will also be able to make their views on airports' noise control policies and procedures known through the mandatory public consultation. There is the additional point that I was seeking to respond to when I thought the noble Baroness was speaking to the previous amendment—namely, that local authorities may wish to play their part in a trust that deals with payments for noise and emissions, to the benefit of the local community.
	I was at one with the noble Baroness that local authorities have a proper part to play in respect of airports, but they have those opportunities and powers under existing legislation and the amendment is quite unnecessary.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and for the interventions that, once again, told me that the amendment is not necessary. It has permitted a debate on the role of people not associated with an airport in monitoring noise levels and in making their views known. The Minister has referred at length to the planning issues, but the amendment is not about that. It is about the impact that a local authority could have in making sure that the monitoring of noise was carried out and was known to the airport authority. In light of what has been said, I do not intend to pursue this further and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendment No. 11:
	Page 6, line 40, at end insert—
	"( ) any body appearing to the Secretary of State to be representative of operators of aircraft using the aerodrome,"

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 11, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 12. The amendments make two minor changes to the consultation requirement that subsection (5) of new Section 38B places on the Secretary of State when he proposes to make an order specifying an area within which a non-designated airport's noise control scheme shall apply.
	It has become apparent to us that although subsection (5) lists a number of specific statutory consultees—including the CAA, the operator of the airport, local authorities and organisations representing the interests of local people—the operators of aircraft that use the airport are not included in the list. The first of these amendments remedies that omission. It does so using the formulation,
	"any body appearing to the Secretary of State to be representative of operators of aircraft using the aerodrome",
	which is used elsewhere in the Bill, specifically in Clause 3, page 4, line 31.
	Amendment No. 12 then changes the reference to organisations representing the interests of local people, so that the same formulation is used consistently—that is, that these bodies are those,
	"appearing to the Secretary of State to be representative",
	of those interests. The effect of this provision—the requirement for the Secretary of State to consult bodies representing the interests of local people—will remain exactly the same. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendment No. 12:
	Page 6, line 45, leave out "other organisations representing the interests" and insert "any other body appearing to the Secretary of State to be representative"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]

Lord Berkeley: moved Amendment No. 14:
	After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
	"SOUND-PROOFING OF DOMESTIC AND COMMUNITY BUILDINGS AFFECTED BY AERODROME USE
	(1) The Secretary of State shall, no later than one year after this section comes into effect, make regulations under section 20(1) of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (c. 26) (sound-proofing of buildings affected by public works) imposing a duty on responsible authorities to insulate domestic and community buildings, such as schools and nurseries, hospitals, nursing homes, hospices, places of worship, libraries and other public use buildings against noise caused, or expected to be caused, by the use of aerodromes for the taking off and landing of aircraft.
	(2) Such insulation should provide for internal noise environments equivalent or better than the "good" category of BS 8233 where relevant.
	(3) In making provision as to the level of noise giving rise to such a duty in respect of a building or class of buildings, and the area in which a building must be situated if the duty is to arise in respect of it, the regulations must make reference to the noise attenuation of individual rooms in domestic and community buildings such as those outlined in subsection (1) above."

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 14, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 27. First, I declare an interest as president of the Aviation Environment Federation.
	My amendment is similar to the one that I moved in Committee. I have taken into account many of the comments that my noble friend the Minister made in response at that stage—I will not repeat all the arguments now, your Lordships will be glad to hear. The key issue on which my noble friend focused was that these noise insulation schemes are at present voluntary. He made the point that he did not want everybody to see,
	"the heavy hand of the Secretary of State".
	He said:
	"We wish to see specific measures adopted . . . and we need to be assured that they are fit for purpose".
	That is all very fine, but he went on to say that he expected,
	"aircraft operators to offer households that are subject to a high level of noise, under the 69 decibel measure, assistance with the costs".—[Official Report, 8/12/05; col. GC109.]
	My question is: what happens if the operators do not do this, as some will not, if they can get away with it? Turkeys do not often vote for Christmas. I am sure that there are many responsible operators, as we have heard today, but there are one or two irresponsible ones—the same applies to airlines. Sixty-nine decibels is a long way from the World Health Organisation-recommended noise level in bedrooms of 30dBA, especially as this is a log scale, as we heard earlier. I believe that a national scheme is needed to catch the people who are not complying. For those who are complying, there is no problem, as they have already complied.
	Noise affects everyone under the flight path, regardless of which airport the flights happen to be starting at. A lot of concern has been expressed in Greenwich over flights to Heathrow, which is a long way away. I have heard estimates that about 5 million people in this country are badly affected by noise. Therefore, the scheme needs to be national. It needs to be adequate and comprehensive, so that the internal noise insulation levels comply with BS 8233. It also needs to be statutory. That is what my amendment proposes—that, within a year, the Secretary of State shall bring forward regulations to meet a category of BS 8233. I do not think that that is an unreasonable request. We need a system that will help anyone who lives under a flight path, whether in Tiree—although I expect that aircraft fly over the sea there—or in Coventry. It is very sad if you live under the flight path in Coventry, where you get nothing at all, whereas at Birmingham International you can get looked after quite well, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said.
	I suggest that now is the time to do this, before we start discussions about planning permission for a third runway at Heathrow or more runways at Stansted and all the other debates. Let us first try to get the existing stock of houses and community buildings insulated, so that people can live a proper life. I beg to move.

Lord Soley: My Lords, I shall speak briefly on this, because my noble friend has made some useful comments. I, too, declare an interest, as campaign director for Future Heathrow, which is a campaigning organisation made up of business groups, trade unions, airlines and professional associations. The organisation is deeply concerned, as I am, about the continuing decline of Heathrow airport. Whenever we discuss these things, we need to remember that 170,000 people are either directly or indirectly dependent on Heathrow alone. Few people know that Heathrow has already been overtaken by three continental airports; at the end of March, it will also have been overtaken by Munich and, shortly after that, by Milan, Rome and Madrid, too. If anyone thinks that we can just opt out of the world as it is, they are wrong.
	My noble friend is absolutely right to say that neither expansion nor modernisation should take place without a high priority being given to the environment generally. That does not just mean noise; it also means air pollution problems and looking at the whole area. The issue is this: if we let our airports stay as they are, they will decline, particularly the big ones. People who talk about their areas in this context had better look at the job consequences of that, in relation to high-tech jobs in particular, but also in relation to low-income jobs. Airports are immense generators of wealth.
	My experience is that many of the people who wrote to me when I was an MP complaining about the noise of planes were the same people who said to me that flights were at times too expensive and that they were very pleased to see the arrival of the low-cost operators. That is similar to the letters one got from the people who dropped their kids off at school in their cars and then complained that there was too much traffic on the roads. We all have double views on this matter. If I was thinking of my own personal needs, having lived under the airport flight path for 30-odd years, I would close down the airport tomorrow. However, I do not think of my own personal needs and, fortunately, I do not think that the vast majority of the population does, either. I think that the public are far more sympathetic to the idea of expansion than people give them credit for. The people who write the letters on noise are not necessarily representative of the majority community, particularly given that an airport such as Heathrow provides 170,000 jobs—people are not daft.
	The issue is how we can operate in a more environmentally friendly way. My noble friend has put forward an interesting measure, although I think that there are better ways of doing this. We ought to look at the long-term solution to the problem, which is a difficult one. When I look at what local authorities are doing around airports that are expanding, I see an immense variation of response. Some local authorities are extremely good and work very closely with the airport, trying to work out ways in which they can mitigate the impact of that airport on the people living immediately around it—my colleague from Manchester will know about that.
	Other local authorities seem to take the view that all they have to do is try to stop the airport, as though they can stop the world and get off, and go back to a pre-industrial age. I am always amazed by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, with his family background. He seems to have forgotten that in the early part of the 19th century, when trains were being developed, there was a minority of people with opinions similar to his who took the view that trains were nasty, dirty and smoky and that they carved up the countryside and should not be allowed. Fortunately, they lost the argument. People recognised that, in a country driven by the industrial revolution and scientific advance—which is what this country has been so good at—we needed to improve these things rather than stop them happening.
	I suspect that the alternative to my noble friend's efforts, although I have no enormous problem with the amendment, is to start getting local authorities more effectively engaged with airports. In some cases, they are really well engaged and good discussions take place. I often wonder why we do not discuss in rather more detail whether we can move schools. Some schools which are under flight paths are in an undesirable location, for a variety of reasons. We should consider that, but it can be done only if we take a view of the airport in the whole area.
	In relation to Heathrow, I have talked to some of the bigger developers, such as Arup. I think that I have mentioned on a previous occasion that Arup has just won two contracts in China to build two cities, each of 1 million people and each designed to be carbon-neutral. If our companies can do that in China—it demonstrates how fast the Chinese are jumping ahead of us—there is no reason why we cannot expect our airport operators and the local authorities working around them to develop a more strategic approach to airports which recognises their immense economic value in terms of jobs, prosperity and everything else and, at the same time, recognises that there is an impact on the people who live around them, which needs to be addressed.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, how does my noble friend imagine that the United Kingdom will ever meet its targets for carbon emissions if the course that he is proposing to the House is followed—that is, an apparently unlimited growth in demand for air travel—bearing in mind that air travel is the largest single contributor to climate change?

Lord Soley: My Lords, it is not the largest single contributor; it is the fastest-growing contributor. The largest contributor is our homes, so if you want to close down everyone's homes, that is the way to deal with climate change. Air travel is the fastest-growing contributor and that is important, but we should look at the new aircraft that are coming along, which are 20 per cent more fuel efficient and thus more efficient in terms of emissions. But more importantly—I argued this at the Airport Operators Association conference in Bournemouth a few months ago, and we could start doing this now—we should expect airport operators to go for carbon neutrality in ground operations. They can do that, and it would fit very much with what my noble friend is saying. He talks about soundproofing, but we should be talking about ways in which we can make our buildings on and around airports more environmentally friendly, and that is not just a matter of soundproofing, as I am sure he would agree.
	The alternative—I put this to my noble friend who has just intervened—is to say, "We are not going to fly in this country, even though increasingly everyone else will, and we will just close the system down". You cannot go down that road. We have to solve these problems through a combination of bearing down on climate-changing emissions of all types in all ways and, at the same time, moving the technology forward in a way that both the aircraft and engine manufacturers are working very hard to do. My view is that the airport operators are not working on this as hard as they should be, which is why I gave them that message. I also say to many people, particularly in this House, that it is a bit rich to criticise people for flying when the number of flights made by Members of this House is a lot higher than the average for the same number of the population outside. People need to be cautious about whether they are asking others to do what they themselves are not prepared to do.
	I shall end on this point. I know that there is no quick fix to this problem but if we can get the local authorities in some, but not all, areas into a different frame of mind about airports and the way that they interact with airport management—and vice versa, because this is also about airport management—then we can begin to crack a lot of the problems to which my noble friend is drawing attention and quite a few others. That is how we should be viewing this matter, unless we want to opt out of the modern world.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I totally agree with the last point made by my noble friend Lord Soley. The unfortunate part of the amendment is that it gives the impression that the people who work around airports and the unions are uncaring about the environment. That is totally false. I am the president of the British Airline Pilots Association, and when we discuss the expansion of the airports, the environment is a vital part of those discussions, as it should be. But, at the moment, the situation that prevails at Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and all the British Airports Authority airports is one where the views of the local community, when expressed reasonably, and those of everyone with an interest in the airport, are heard and their views are taken into account. It should not be expressed glibly because the debate that takes place at the moment is of major consequence. I wanted to convey that viewpoint.
	Of course the views of people who live under the flight path—particularly those where the flights are at a certain height—should be taken into account. The impact on them is of vital concern. But it depends on how high the aeroplanes fly; otherwise, there would be no flights whatever. So there has to be a certain reasonableness about the whole situation. So far as concerns the larger airports—I do not know what happens with the smaller ones—at the moment the airport authorities are concerned in a major way about the environment and the people who are affected.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, there has been quite a lot of debate about local authorities in the past few moments and I shall comment on that, but initially I want to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Obviously, in relation to the airport that I know best—Stansted—there is some unease about the amount of work that will be done in the neighbourhood with the continued expansion there, and that fits in very much with the amendment. So I support the amendment.
	However, in my experience, there is no way that local authorities can afford to do the work that has been suggested. The money for that has to come from the expansion of the airports or other things. Certainly, the authority that I lead is one of the largest in the country with a budget of £1.5 billion, but we would have no capacity to put money into that work. The money has to come from other areas.

Lord Soley: My Lords, it cannot conceivably be said that I was suggesting that that should be the case. The argument is that local authorities and airports need to work more closely together than they are doing at the moment and get a shared view of the vision for the area in terms of the strategies for the airport. Frankly, the noble Lord's area is one where they should be doing more—and the noble Lord is in a position to influence that—but they do not have to pay for it in the simple sense.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, given all the other things that I do, I spend quite a lot of time talking to BAA about the expansion at Stansted. In my experience, local authorities are pretty much involved. However, I know only what is happening at Stansted, and certainly I and my colleagues are very much involved in what is happening there. I think that there is merit in the amendment and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response on it.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I also believe there is merit in what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has said. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to all who have participated in this short debate. Of course, there is no doubt at all that insulation is a matter of great concern to all who live near our major airports, including Heathrow. It is only fair to point out that the noise environment around many of our airports has improved over time as new and quieter aircraft technologies have been introduced. Many people who have come to live in the vicinity of airports in recent years have done so with the knowledge of the existing noise climate. Many of those properties will have benefited from previous insulation when noise levels were higher.
	I want to reassure my noble friend Lord Berkeley. In introducing the amendment, he said that he needed to know the endpoint and who has the power to ensure that airports meet their requirements. The answer is straightforward: the Secretary of State has the power to require individual airports to provide acoustic insulation using his powers under Section 79 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. In the past, he has designated both Heathrow and Gatwick airports for that purpose. So we already have precedents for effective action. That is why we have properties with good insulation in some areas close to airports.
	Currently, noise insulation schemes are provided on a voluntary basis by airports, sometimes supported by local planning agreements, which is where the local authorities come in. As the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, indicated, many local authorities take a very close interest in their airports, as my noble friend Lord Smith indicated on the previous amendment.
	I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Soley for broadening the debate. He takes advantage of the gentler procedures in this House to put forward a range of propositions. I am quite sure, on a similar amendment in the other place, he would have had difficulty in broadening the debate to that extent. He is right that we need to consider having greener airports and concern for the environment, which will involve partnerships with local authorities. There is also a clear requirement on airports to address these issues more effectively than they have in the past. That is the only way in which they can ever expect to achieve broad public support for any developments that they seek.
	I am confident that airports will meet the Government's criteria without requiring compulsion. We have clear criteria on insulation that need to be met, and airports know what is expected of them. I can reassure my noble friend Lord Berkeley that should they fail in that respect, the Secretary of State can use, and indeed will use, statutory powers to ensure that appropriate insulation schemes are introduced.
	A comprehensive set of policies is in place to deal with noise insulation for a wide range of buildings. Again, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Soley for mentioning the issue with regard to schools. Some buildings require extra attention as regards insulation so that their purposes can be fulfilled in circumstances where there is a great deal of noise above and around them. We have a power of enforcement if voluntary measures do not prove sufficient. That is why I do not believe that the proposed amendments are necessary. Although my noble friend has introduced an important aspect, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment on the basis of the assurances that I have given.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will confirm that those powers apply to any airport in the UK and, if not, to which ones do they not apply?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend will recognise that in regard to insulation we are concerned about the major airports. We are not concerned about Tiree, if I can mention it once again. The designated airports—Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted—have included proposals for noise insulation schemes and we have a provisional proposal that the insulation schemes criteria should apply to non-domestic buildings where people sleep on most nights, for example, hospices, nursing homes and hospitals. We are working intensively on the issue. Perhaps the noble Lord will recognise that the airports that present this problem in the most obvious form are those on which the obligations rest. If necessary, we shall not fail to act.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his answers. They deserve detailed reading as he has given some very interesting information. I am not sure why the Government are so much against a statutory scheme, which is the crux of the debate. There is one at Chicago O'Hare airport which works well. I live in a house in Battersea, west London, which received statutory noise insulation against Channel Tunnel rail freight trains. Noble Lords might think there is an irony there. I have the installation, but if I had wanted it for noise from the air, I probably would not have received it. There is a precedent for a statutory scheme such as this, and it is something on which to reflect before Third Reading. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 8 [Functions with respect to health]:

The Countess of Mar: moved Amendment No. 15:
	Page 9, line 41, at end insert "and on airport or aerodrome premises"

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 15 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 and, to save time, to Amendment No. 16 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham.
	I have added "airport and aerodrome premises" to,
	"the health of persons on board aircraft",
	because health effects in an airport environment can affect anyone and not necessarily just once people have boarded an aeroplane. We need to look comprehensively at the health of all involved in and around airports. This is the simplest way of doing it. I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, the noble Countess has very kindly introduced Amendment No. 16. We wish to extend the concern about health to people living in the vicinity of airports. We have discussed noise a lot of this evening and we have discussed emissions a little. We have not discussed stress much. I do not intend to do so, but I want to mention it. Stress arising from noise and lack of sleep is a concern in relation to aircraft. Furrthermore, one cannot take away from this the possibility of respiratory diseases caused by fumes from aviation fuel. It is appropriate that, as we now have a statutory requirement to consider the health of passengers on aircraft, we should consider that on a much wider front.

Lord Smith of Leigh: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Countess, Lady Mar, on the radical amendment she has tabled. It is radical because no other clause refers to airports. We have this rather anachronistic term "aerodrome". However, I wonder whether it is necessary to introduce this amendment as airport operators already have responsibility for what happens on airport premises under existing health and safety and other legislation. It is unnecessary to bring in powers for the Secretary of State as well and it will lead to confusion about who is responsible for what.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken on this important issue. All the requirements of Amendments Nos. 15, 17 and 18, moved by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, are covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which regulates risks to people arising from work activities in Britain. As noble Lords will be aware, it has a wide scope, imposing duties on employers and self-employed persons to protect themselves, employees and the wider public, so far as is reasonably practicable, from all the risks to health and safety that their work activity creates.
	The noble Countess will be aware of the extent to which health and safety inspectors are concerned with airport management and the arrival and departure of passengers, and all those who work for their efficient progress through the airport. As my noble friend Lord Soley mentioned in the earlier amendment, we are talking about large numbers of employees and a wide range of activities, which are covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, why can persons onboard aircraft not be covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974? Some of them will be working.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is so, but there is a difficulty when the aircraft moves out of British legislative space. The House will recognise that aircraft present that difficulty on a range of issues. I wanted to emphasise that the safety of passengers on airport and aerodrome premises—which her three amendments concentrate upon—is certainly covered by this legislation.
	On the points of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, there are legal requirements on us to ensure air quality standards around airports; we are governed by EU requirements on emissions standards in our ambient air, irrespective of the source of emissions. When we published our air quality strategy in January 2000, we set out health-based objectives for the eight main air pollutants, and deadlines for achieving them. The strategy identified the action required at national and international level, and the contribution that the Government, industry, transport, local authorities, business and individuals can make to improve air quality. EC limits on levels of particulate pollutants in ambient air came into effect in 2005, and will apply to nitrogen dioxide from 2010. We are committed to meeting the European standards, and are giving clear evidence of our commitment to deal with air pollution within this framework. Other factors, such as the effects of noise on human health, are the subject of continuing research. We expect airport operators to undertake appropriate health impact assessments when bringing forward any expansion plans. We have framed environmental objectives for each airport in the recent consultation on night flying restrictions, which was the subject of earlier consideration.
	We are committed to taking account of the guideline values, and will do so over the 30-year time horizon of the air transport White Paper. We also support the World Health Organisation's conclusions for regular reviews and revisions to the guidelines as new scientific evidence emerges. The Government do not, therefore, believe that Clause 8 should be extended in line with this amendment. We already have policies and statutory powers in place to deal with these problems. I hope noble Lords will recognise that an important feature of airports has been identified; of that there is no question. The Government are fully aware of it, have strategies to deal with these issues and already have appropriate powers to act effectively. I therefore hope the noble Countess will withdraw her amendment.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's reply, and to other noble Lords who took part.
	At this stage, I will read what the Minister has said. I am still not very happy about the Divisions but, if necessary, I can come back on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdrawn the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 16 to 18 not moved.]

The Countess of Mar: moved Amendment No. 19:
	After Clause 8, insert the following new clause—
	"CIVIL AVIATION OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICAL MONITORING AND ACTION CENTRE
	(1) There shall be an independent organisation to be known as the Civil Aviation Occupational and Environmental Medical Monitoring and Action Centre (CA-OEMMAC).
	(2) CA-OEMMAC is to have the functions conferred on it by or under this or any other Act.
	(3) Schedule (CA-OEMMAC: Supplementary) makes further provision about CA-OEMMAC."

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 19, I will speak also to Amendment No. 29.
	On Second Reading, and again in Committee, I detailed my concerns about the effects of air contamination incidents on aircraft pilots, cabin crew and passengers. I recognise that some of the detail was very technical and the Minister will no doubt be relieved to know that I will not repeat it. I would like to express my gratitude to him, however, for meeting me after Committee stage.
	The Minister may recall that, in Committee, I asked him to give me a reasoned rebuttal of the facts I gave in my speech when I moved this amendment. As no rebuttal has been forthcoming, I must assume that he accepts the accuracy of my assertions—particularly the technical ones. The more I look at this problem, the more I understand that it is one of management. Christine Standing, in her paper The Aviation Safety System: political, organisational and personal, a copy of which the Minister has, says:
	"The architecture of a system has a profound influence on the organisational processes. If, at the outset, there is an unworkable design, then this dynamic will permeate the total system and will emerge at different levels downstream where it will eventually be seen to be unworkable".
	A survey conducted by BALPA and published in a leading occupational health journal showed that less than 4 per cent of contaminated air events experienced by pilots in aircraft were recorded on the CAA mandatory occurrence report database. I will not go through all the Written Answers that Ministers have given to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and myself as to the reasons for this discrepancy. They are all in Hansard. I will, however, say that they are very often contradictory and against the evidence.
	I have tried to find out from pilots and cabin crew who have been affected by contaminated air events why reporting levels are so low. I am told that there is complacency among pilots that a bad smell is "normal". Because events have been occurring over many years—in fact, much longer than the phenomenon has been known to exist—the complacency has become in-bred, with new pilots asking older ones what the smell is and being told "That's normal. You get it all the time".
	Although airlines deny it, there is commercial pressure exerted on pilots to operate aircraft, probably most prevalent in the low-cost sector. The consequences of reporting a defect such as a contaminated air event in the aircraft log is that it will have to be investigated before aircraft can fly again. Understandably, airlines do not have multi-million pound aircraft in reserve in case an aircraft is grounded for investigation. Consequently the flying programme will suffer.
	Pilots are reliant upon airlines for information and advice. Some are wrongly being told that they only need to report, under the mandatory occurrence reporting scheme, cases where oxygen is used or when the pilots are fully incapacitated. In fact, Article 142 of the Air Navigation Order and Directive 2003/42/EC requires pilots to report all cases of,
	"incapacitation of any member of the flight crew",
	without qualification of the extent of incapacitation. Until recently, oxygen was rarely used in contaminated air events, as pilots' checklists did not advise its use, and neither did the airlines or the CAA.
	There are no onboard detection or warning systems to alert a pilot to the fact that a contaminated air event is taking place. Reliance is therefore placed upon the individual's sense of smell to detect such an event—if he has a sense of smell and if, indeed, it is characterised by smell. Repeated exposure may diminish the sense of smell and consequently reduce detection. Most importantly, a pilot's licence is only valid when it contains a valid medical certificate. If pilots were to report contamination events, they may feel vulnerable to medical examination, followed by the possible suspension of their medical certificates. With no licence there is no job—hence a reluctance to report.
	All contaminated air events are safety issues as they have the potential to impact on flight safety. The European Aviation Safety Agency rules that govern the airworthiness of a plane state that each crew compartment must have enough fresh air to enable crew members to perform their duties without discomfort or fatigue; and that crew and passenger compartment air must be free from harmful or hazardous concentrations of gases or vapours.
	I repeat: "free from".
	These regulations are mandatory, yet the CAA chooses to distinguish between what is and what is not a safe level of contamination without any scientific evidence to confirm or rule out a contaminated air event or the extent of any contamination. Cabin or cockpit air is not routinely monitored and not once have tests been conducted during a fume event. In fact, in evidence to the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee's inquiry into air travel and health in 2000 the CAA stated:
	"Air contamination would be considered to make an aircraft unairworthy if it is likely to incapacitate the aircraft's flight crew",
	and:
	"The airworthiness design requirements are limited in their scope in addressing health effects, and are almost exclusively confined to assuring environmental conditions that would not incapacitate the persons on board due to short term health effects and preclude continued safe flying and landing".
	Is there not a rather large gap between "undue discomfort or fatigue", as stated in the regulations and the CAA's interpreting them as "incapacity"?
	That highlights one part of the problem. Originally the CAA and its US equivalent, the FAA, were purely commercial organisations, but, by the late 1920s, it was recognised that air safety needed to be regulated, and in this country the regulatory duties were placed on the CAA. A former inspector general of the US Department of Transportation observed that this,
	"dual mission did not leap out at anyone as a glaring paradox",
	because,
	"at its core, safety isn't cost effective".
	Airline accident prevention and commercial management are polarised. Piloting an aircraft is a dangerous occupation, and it is in the aircrews' interests to promote safe practices to reduce the incidence of accidents. Managers are responsible for ensuring, among other things, the financial viability of the organisation that they serve.
	Research into accidents and incidents reveal management failures that are contributory factors. Research evidence shows that when an organisation develops a "them and us" structure, attitudes become antithetical, and, if they are habitual, lead to behaviour that ignores genuine concerns; for example, managers unintentionally may regard aircrews as whiners—as indeed they were described to me just a few days ago—and fail to support them when they express concerns about their flying conditions.
	As Christine Standing says in her paper:
	"Where accountabilities are concerned there is full accountability for pilots whose responsibilities are enshrined in law—although they may not know what management deficits (latent failures) have been implemented before they themselves board an aircraft. They have to trust the managers. At the other end of the organisational polarity, 'management', no managers are likely to report themselves for safety deficits that impact on the work of pilots. Pilots who bring safety concerns may find their views are thought of as unhelpful—or even 'outrageous'—an attitude fostered by the polarised nature of airlines. There is a power imbalance".
	In other walks of life—and we have heard from the Minister this evening—the Health and Safety Executive is responsible for health and safety at work, but, as was noted by the Science and Technology Committee in 2000,
	"commercial aircraft are largely exempt from the provisions of the UK health and safety at work legislation".
	There is a memorandum of understanding between the CAA and the Health and Safety Executive in order to avoid overlapping responsibilities, with the CAA having the lead. It has been noted by Graeme Henderson in his paper: Enforcement of Health and Safety on Aircraft, SPDA4 2002, that:
	"There is no agency covering the health and safety of persons in aircraft when they are in flight. There appears to be a marked reluctance on the part of the CAA to take on responsibility for occupational health and safety issues which they clearly prefer to leave to HSE".
	So we have a situation where there is no one body to which aircrew can turn when health and safety concerns arise. Neither the CAA nor the HSE seem willing to accept the responsibility, and Clause 8, as currently worded, will not cure the ill. My proposals for—I will use the abbreviation—OEMMAC may not be ideal, but it would provide a framework upon which to build an organisation that would be respected by all the staff employed by the airlines and the CAA, whether they be ground staff, aircrew on the ground or in the air, or passengers on the ground or in the air.
	The organisation could also serve the public involved in incidents concerning aircraft. I am not talking just about contaminated air incidents—I have used those as examples because they involve a subject about which I have some knowledge. OEMMAC would deal with all occupational health and safety matters. It would be totally independent of the CAA, the airlines operators and aircraft manufacturers. I do not envisage a large staff, just an experienced and appropriately qualified group who would know where and to whom to refer people who seek their advice.
	The OEMMAC would be able to advise employers and unions where working practices were not safe or engineering modifications were necessary, and, if necessary, report failures to the Health and Safety Executive for prosecution. It would also be able to propose research topics. It would have contacts with international organisations connected with the commercial airline business.
	I recognise that the wording of my schedule may not be perfect, but I hope that the Minister will not ignore what I have had to say, and that he may even come up with some alternative but equally effective suggestions.
	As Christine Standing said at the end of her paper:
	"A total revision and integration"—
	I repeat, "integration"—
	"of the various disciplines and agencies as a coherent whole would improve the health and safety of aircrew".
	I would add "and passengers and ground staff".
	Finally, it is perhaps appropriate that just last evening our own occupational health, safety and welfare organisation sent out a notice inviting us to a seminar entitled: "If you think safety is expensive, try having an accident!". I beg to move.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, first, I pay tribute to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for the way she has raised this issue on innumerable occasions and with care and diligence. I put my name down to this particular amendment although I do not think that it is the last word, as she has said. But I would like to hear my noble friend on this issue. I hope that the Government will take the whole issue seriously. BALPA has long discussed this issue. It should not be discarded. It is a significant problem but it is not capable of an instant solution.
	The noble Countess, Lady Mar, has presented a powerful case, and I am sure that my noble friend—I hope at least—will take on board what she has said. My hope is that the necessary research in the United Kingdom—rather than that in the United States; although that is relevant but not wholly persuasive—should be undertaken speedily but thoroughly and also independently. It is vital that this issue is not susceptible to the criticism that the authority conducting the research is not wholly independent.
	I conclude by saying that the noble Countess, Lady Mar, has done a real service by airing this concern. While I say that immediate solutions are not viable, and that the possible solution which she has put down is not necessarily the last word, I think that it is worth while the Government ensuring that this issue is properly researched as soon as possible.

Lord Tyler: My Lords, the issues to which the noble Countess, Lady Mar, has referred represent not just a betrayal of the interests of air crews and airline passengers but a disaster waiting to happen. With the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I co-signed her amendment and new schedule relating to the role and responsibilities of the CAA and the need to establish a much more robust system to monitor risks and health threats and insist on remedial action. It is time that we had that action.
	Let me illustrate the severity of the problem. Last week, I received answers to a series of parliamentary Questions about the recent in-flight incidents in which BALPA, the pilots' association, had reported to me that there had been evidence of air contamination in the cockpit or passenger area. As previously there has been serious illness—both acute and chronic—among air crews, I take those very seriously.
	Of the seven incidents involving the aircraft BAe 146, the Minister replied that in five cases the CAA,
	"has no record of a contaminated air incident".—[ Official Report, 1/3/06; col. WA 55.]
	Why not? What is so extraordinary is that I had asked about a previous incident involving a Boeing 757 and was told that the CAA had no record. Subsequently, the department and the CAA had to be reminded of that by BALPA and the Minister had to admit that,
	"that was unfortunately not reported to the CAA at the time by the airline due to an administrative oversight . . . We remain satisfied with the effectiveness of this system because it enables both airlines and crews separately to report incidents to the independent regulator".—[Official Report, 16/2/06; cols. WA 87–88.]
	The Government may be reassured by that, but no one else is—certainly not those in the industry. As was so well explained in the excellent examination of this issue in the Observer on 26 February, even the most experienced officers and air crews are reluctant to report incidents. Some reasons for that have been given by the noble Countess. Self-regulation and monitoring by airlines, let alone by manufacturers, is woefully inadequate.
	In that exposé in the Observer, several pilots whose careers had been ended when they reported illness consequent on incidents of that kind explained why. Anthony Barnett, the paper's investigations editor, spoke also to Captain B,
	"an experienced passenger jet pilot",
	who said that,
	"he is scared that if he gives any clue to his identity he will be sacked".
	Those are not new problems. They have been on the Government's desk for six years to my certain knowledge. I was first alerted to them in December 1999, when I received an alarming report from Sweden that stated that on 12 November of that year an unidentified toxic gas had almost caused catastrophe in a BAe 146 aircraft operated by Braathens Malmo Aviation. In the subsequent debate in the other place, I explained what happened. I stated:
	"On the first part of a three-part trip, the cabin attendants felt strange and experienced incredible pressure. One attendant described the experience as like a 'moonwalk.' On the second leg, the discomfort returned, and the two pilots experienced it too. On the third leg, to Sturrup airport, the cabin manager realised that something was seriously wrong, went forward to the cockpit before landing and found that both pilots were wearing their oxygen masks. The captain was so near to blackout, in his words:
	'feeling dizzy and groggy despite the oxygen that he had instructed the first officer to take over the controls and land the plane'".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/6/00; col. 206WH.]
	Ministerial replies then and thereafter were constantly reassuring—and misleading. Self-regulation has proved dangerously inadequate. Frankly, I do not trust aircraft, engine or lubricant manufacturers, let alone the airlines, to undertake the necessary monitoring, testing and remedial action required for this continuing, very dangerous problem. The potential poachers cannot fulfil the role of effective, independent gamekeepers. The scale of the risk requires a far more robust and independent approach.
	As I previously pointed out, the BAe 146 aircraft, which has so often been affected by incidents in Australia and on the Continent as well as here in the UK, is still used by the Queen's Flight. Prince Philip and Princess Anne are both reported to have complained in 2000 of unpleasant fumes on flights in such aircraft. Indeed, Members of your Lordships' House may well have flown in an official capacity in a BAe 146 and may be able to add to that sorry saga.
	Representatives of pilots and air crews have prepared an 18-page dossier for submission to the chairman of the CAA on those issues. I trust that the Minister will take very seriously the collapse of confidence among responsible airline staff in the reporting regime and the consequent examination of risky incident and air causes.
	I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the amendments tabled by the noble Countess. I also hope that our future exchanges will produce more informative answers. In the mean time, I have six very quick questions for him.
	First, he has already referred to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. I was a Member of the other place when that Act was passed. It is quite clear that it does not apply to an aircraft in flight. Which government agency or department has full responsibility for the health and safety of airline passengers once the aircraft has left the ground and UK territory? Has that body undertaken any research or obtained medical feedback from passengers after an air contamination incident in the aircraft has been reported?
	The CAA research report on the issue stated:
	"Although some references are made concerning long-term health effects, the scope of this research did not include an attempt to determine the extent of any such risk".
	Why, then, did the Aviation Health Working Group claim that there is no evidence to,
	"suggest that there is a health risk to passengers, including infants, or crew"?
	Next, how do the CAA and the Minister define the difference between incapacity of a pilot or aircrew and reduced efficiency? Next, even BAe and the lubricant manufacturers now admit that there is a potentially serious problem. Why is the research study undertaken under the auspices of BAe being kept secret? BALPA figures show that only about half of reported incidents of that sort reached the CAA—probably representing less than 5 per cent of the total that actually occur. Surely the Government must deal with that growing discrepancy.
	As I mentioned earlier, one parliamentary Question that I tabled referred to the air contamination incident on Boeing 757 G-BIKI on 9 November 1998. The Minister told me that the CAA had no record of that incident, but then had to confess to an error in the system. That was no minor incident. The mandatory occurrence report was entitled, "Toxic Fumes in the Flightdeck". The captain who filed the MOR was subsequently retired due to ill health by his airline, but the CAA has never even heard about it. What better evidence of failure can there be?
	In the interests of safety and good health for pilots, cabin staff and passengers, we need a radical change and we need it now. I should like to be reassured by the Minister that he and his team have read the full report from the conference at Imperial College last April on contaminated air protection. That is what the amendments address. The issues are urgent. I hope that we will get action now.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate, but especially to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, who has pursued the issue with her customary diligence. I have also been grateful for her willingness to discuss these matters with me outside the Chamber, so that I could develop a full understanding of them. Whether that leads me to giving a more constructive answer, the House and she will have to judge, but I have certainly very much appreciated how she has presented the issues and her proposed solution to them.
	I also greatly respect the campaign conducted by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, both in this place and in the other place before he arrived here, on the issue. It goes without saying that the Government recognise that these are issues of the greatest importance for the industry. We are certainly concerned about any possible threat to the health of crews and passengers. That involves people's general health and what may occur to them after their careers as a crew have been completed, or to passengers who leave aircraft and subsequently feel ill; but the most important concern must be the ability of flight crew to guarantee the safety of the aircraft, because failures on that front could, as noble Lords have said, have catastrophic effects.
	We do not think that the proposed new clause is the way forward. The Civil Aviation Authority and its aviation health unit carry out many of the functions proposed for the new organisation. I respect the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and the noble Countess, Lady Mar, about past failures of the Civil Aviation Authority in relation to one or two incidents. There have not been many, but any incidents are too many in these circumstances. As a result of the last discussion on this issue, the department has brought home to the Civil Aviation Authority the necessity of ensuring exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, seeks—namely, effective recording—because it is not right for the Civil Aviation Authority, which is concerned with the welfare and health of those on flights, not to have an effective record of when things have gone wrong or to indicate how it responds.
	This Bill places a general duty on Her Majesty's Government to organise, carry out and encourage measures for safeguarding the health of persons on board aircraft. If this is not unique in the world, it certainly puts the UK Government among the leaders in promoting aviation health. We take this responsibility seriously, and we are aided in our concern by the issues identified by the noble Countess and the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, in their contributions, and by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis from his specific perspective.
	It goes without saying that the Government would not want air passengers or crew to be exposed to serious health risks. The issue at hand is establishing whether and to what extent any such risks exist in cabin air. The Government are not aware of this being the case, and until there is convincing evidence to the contrary, we find it difficult to justify the significant cost which the centre proposed in the amendment would impose on taxpayers. No reference has been made to the Committee on Science and Technology. It considered this issue and said:
	"The absence of confirmed cases of tri-ortho-cresyl phosphate (TOCP) poisoning from cabin air and the very low levels of TOCP that would be found in even in the highly unlikely worst case of contamination from oil leaking into the air supply lead us to conclude that the concerns about significant risk to the health of airline passengers and crew are not substantiated".
	That is from a greatly respected committee of this House.
	Of course, I recognise that this was six years ago, and that there may be new evidence. The Department for Transport, via the Aviation Health Working Group, has arranged for the independent Committee on Toxicity—the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, sought to make a point about independence—to review any evidence which BALPA wants to produce. This process is currently under way, and BALPA presented its case to the Health Protection Agency on 22 February as part of the preparation for the formal COT meeting, which will be held in public, possibly in May or July this year. So action is being taken on these issues, particularly on the concerns identified by BALPA, and examination will be conducted in public.
	The agency is doing a thorough job. Far from limiting itself to the BALPA material, it has posed questions to the CAA and to engine-oil manufacturers. We take the view that we should rely on the COT report to help us to specify any further research needs in an area where public funds have already been invested without a link between cabin air and long-term health problems being found. If, ultimately, a need is demonstrated for some kind of action, such as design changes or regulation, the Government would need evidence to convince the other EU member states to investigate. Noble Lords should remember that air transport is never an issue only for specific legislation for all sorts of obvious reasons, one of which is that a problem with an aircraft will affect more than one national carrier that uses that aircraft.
	No EU member state except the United Kingdom is currently investigating this issue. In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration has granted funds for research, but little has happened. The project now appears to be looking to the United Kingdom to get the fieldwork done, although that surely could not have been the original intention as we were not involved in the original scheme. We may yet participate in that project if it turns out to match our identified needs after the COT review.
	I hope that I have established that this Government, beyond all other governments, are taking the issue of aviation health seriously. The current arrangements were set up in response to your Lordships' Select Committee inquiry in 2000. I might add that the Transport Committee in another place, chaired by my redoubtable honourable friend Gwyneth Dunwoody, only last month completed a thorough series of evidence sessions into the work of the Civil Aviation Authority. The committee had the advantage of seeing the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and the answers that I gave, which he said were less than satisfactory in some areas, and considered all those factors, too.
	During those hearings, BALPA representatives put forward their views on cabin air. However, the Transport Committee did not pursue this issue when it came to question my honourable friend the Aviation Minister. It would be a brave Member of this House, particularly a Member with experience of the other place, who would say that this was through the neglect or timidity of a Select Committee chaired by my honourable friend in the other place. I therefore conclude that serious consideration of these issues may not quite lead to the conclusions reached by the noble Countess in proposing her amendment. This is a serious issue, which we are addressing. We do not think that establishing a new organisation of the sort suggested in this amendment is warranted.
	I have a little note in my hand saying that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, asked me six quick questions. I have listed them: they are not quick, they are not easy, and I shall not be able to answer them in such a short time. I am sure that the noble Lord will forgive me for that. He asked who was responsible for the safety of passengers and crew. The Department for Transport is responsible. We are responsible for aircraft flying under UK auspices and from UK airports, and we will not renege on that responsibility. On the specific cases which the noble Lord mentioned, he will have to forgive me if, in this general debate, I cannot reply to him in detail now.
	I congratulate again the noble Countess on her pursuit of a very serious issue, which we take very seriously. Her contribution to this debate is of great importance, as is that of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. We do not, however, think that the proposed solution in this amendment is the way forward. I hope she will recognise that we are tackling the issue seriously and respect her views, and that she will be prepared to withdraw her amendment.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the Minister called in aid the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee report. Need I remind him that it did not say that there was no problem over contaminated air and that it recommended that air quality in cabins and cockpits should be regularly monitored? It is now six years later and no such monitoring has taken place. The big problem is that there is a conflict, which I have tried to highlight, between the "them" and the "us". There is a perception that the CAA, the aircraft manufacturers and the airline operators are in league—for want of another word—because they are there to make a profit. They have to keep aeroplanes flying and will do it at any cost. That cost, unfortunately, has been the livelihood of quite a number of pilots, if not their lives. We cannot know how many pilots have lost their lives because of that: there is no record of the air quality at the time an air crash described as "pilot error" takes place. How can we know?
	I do not want to be a doom monger, but I am not happy with the noble Lord's response. I would like to test the feeling of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 19) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 91.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.32 pm.
	Perhaps I may also point out that the limit for Back-Bench contributions on the Unstarred Question is seven minutes, not the eight minutes that was previously stated.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Secure Training Centres

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is the role and purpose of secure training centres in the appropriate management and rehabilitation of young people in trouble.
	My Lords, it is exactly seven years ago, almost to the day, that we debated in this Chamber the role of STCs and heard deep concerns expressed across the House about what we were doing with our most vulnerable, disturbed and difficult young people who are in need of some kind of custody because of their persistent offending. These concerns have not diminished, despite all the expanded emphasis on children's services and the overall assertion that "Every Child Matters". It is our bounden duty to care for, protect and meet the needs of all children. The younger they are and the greater the need, the greater the responsibility. But the evidence is that provision for those most needy of children remains seriously inappropriate.
	Two weeks ago, the Carlile inquiry into,
	"the use of restraint, solitary confinement and forcible strip searching of children in"
	secure settings, commissioned by the Howard League, was published. That such treatment should be investigated at all illustrates just how wrong things are. I have no doubt that a small number of children need to be in secure settings for limited periods for their own safety and for that of others, and those who, very rarely, commit very serious crimes. But there is also no doubt that these are the most needy and challenging children in our community. More than half have been in care, 85 per cent have a personality disorder and most have been excluded from school.
	Today, there are around 2,735 children under 18 years old in custody in England and Wales. We are incarcerating twice as many children as even we did 10 years ago. When they break the law and troubled children become children in trouble, it seems then that every child does not matter. Four secure training centres now take children as young as 12—which is unique in western Europe—and account for 247 beds at a cost of £164,750 a year.
	I recently revisited Medway and went to Rainsbrook secure training centre where I was given a friendly and open welcome. Both are private companies owned by Rebound, a subsidiary of Securicor. I was more thoroughly searched, in a cubicle by a member of staff, than I have ever been in a lifetime of going into prisons, including the Maze. This emphasis on security, even for an expected visitor, and the fact that the children are referred to as "trainees", sets the tone and defines the ethos. The statement of purpose refers to the "safe and secure conditions" and affirms the commitment to,
	"the highest standards of care, control, good order and discipline [while] protecting vulnerable or disruptive young persons from themselves and/or others".
	This is the language of prison, yet these are very young children. Even teddy bears can no longer be "earned" as a privilege, as they were when I last visited five years ago. The ethos and regime is a long way from the kind of therapeutic, specialised, caring environment such children absolutely need. This is what secure children's homes have to offer.
	It is axiomatic that anyone working with needy children recognises that contact with home, relatives or carers is integral to any work being done by professionals. It is central to successful reintegration into life outside for the child. However, almost a third of all children in STCs are over 50 miles away from home, and visiting hours are not open. In both Medway and Rainsbrook, many parents do not even make it to a review or planning meeting. I was amazed and saddened to find that although a wonderful theatrical production had just taken place, to the pride and pleasure of the staff and all concerned because of the children's achievements, no parents had been invited. In another, a boy about to be released from Rainsbrook, near Rugby, was hoping to go back to stay with his foster mother, who he had rarely seen during his sentence. She lives in Bristol.
	Contact with local agencies is vital in helping a child to cope on the outside on release, but becomes almost impossible if children are held far from home. The evidence is that these inter-agency linkages with STCs are often inadequate or non-existent because they are just too far away for any meaningful joint working to take place. Secure children's homes, in contrast, are by definition local, so family contact and local agency links are easier.
	Equally fundamental and critical is the size of the establishment. For young, difficult children, a small environment is essential if the necessary relationships are to be established. It will affect significantly the nature of the relationships within it and enables meaningful work on underlying problems and behaviour to be addressed. A large centre, even if broken up into small units, is not the answer. The smallest STC now has 76 beds, and the next one being planned in Wales is for 100 beds. These are far too big. By contrast, no secure children's home has more than 40 children as a matter of professional policy, and is often much smaller.
	Lastly, the quality and length of training of staff is absolutely vital. Currently, STCs put their staff through seven weeks of training before they start, with subsequent follow-up training days. Given the challenges of the children, that is entirely inadequate. It is unprofessional, I claim, and wrong to ask staff with such brief training to manage such children. The outcome has been that the turnover rate of staff in STCs is extremely high, and it is no accident that at Oakhill, the newest STC which has made a very unhappy start and has had a poor inspection report, the first director has resigned and has been replaced by a career prison governor from Ashfield YOI, who was responsible for 360 15 to 17 year-olds. Prison staff do not have the training to work with young children. Standards of practice are inevitably very different and ultimately the risk of the improper use of restraint, single separation or strip searching grows through a combination of inexperience, lack of training and therefore confidence.
	In that light, even with the good intentions which I know those who are running the STCs have, particularly with their emphasis on education, it is quite clear that the needs of this group of children cannot be appropriately met in these institutions. Eight years ago they did not exist; they are a creation of this Government. In the past, very young prolific offenders had their needs met in specialist secure children's homes, in psychiatric units or in the community. Now we are punishing, not treating; criminalising, not civilising our vulnerable young people. A comprehensive review of the whole approach is urgently needed so that these children can be better helped. Otherwise, the costs both to the Government and the country will continue to escalate.
	In Scotland—which I make no apologies for mentioning—because of the children's hearing system, all children are kept out of the criminal justice system until they are 16. There are no STCs, and all the needs of this group of children are met in secure children's homes. I have just visited a secure unit near Glasgow called Kenmure St. Mary's. There, we found a truly secure place, with an explicit welfare ethos and a very stable, highly trained staff who have a minimum of eight months training and accreditation. It has a very high staff-child ratio of 1:3. Needs are met in a differentiated way in specialist units, including assessment, training, long-term offender and sexually harmful behaviour units. Families are welcome from 9 am to 9 pm every day. There is a very low incidence of restraint based on TCI—therapeutic crisis intervention—and the catchment area is predominantly local so that contact with local services is easier. The children sleep in bedrooms, not the cells of the STC, and 90 per cent plus come through the hearing system.
	There it is, on our doorstep, and it is proof that other models exist which could and should be followed. It is a civilised, caring place. I have just had a letter from the Association of Directors of Social Work in Scotland expressing shock at the Carlile report, saying that it avoids the shocking excesses of force that the report discusses, and confirming that its system for under-16s is based on principles of welfare, not punishment—needs first, then deeds. I believe that the existing provision of secure children's homes in England and Wales, which have a similar philosophy, should be strengthened and developed along these lines.
	Can the Minister give an assurance that the Government will look seriously at the therapeutically based, local, small-scale model for very young offenders before continuing any further down the child prison path with all its inappropriateness and the harm that follows? Will he also tell the House if he is prepared to take a new strategic look at how the relevant government departments and other agencies are operating with the needs of young children in mind?
	Back in 1994, when the Tory government's proposals for STCs were first being discussed, Tony Blair said this in the Commons:
	"To weaken the provisions in local communities and then to claim that building the new secure training centres will help to prevent juvenile crime is a sham. We know that and I believe that the Government know that as well".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/1/94 ; col. 41.]
	How right he was.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, has secured this debate and introduced it with her usual eloquence and passion. This is an important issue. I want to look briefly at how we might prevent offending in the first place and touch on the issue of substance misuse among young people in custody, but I will refer mainly to how we treat young offenders and how the focus should be on rehabilitation.
	Perhaps I may start with substance misuse. I declare an interest as chair of the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse. A large number of young people entering STCs have a problem with drugs or alcohol, and two pilot programmes in STCs are looking at that. It is not surprising that a number of factors identified by research and by the youth justice system increase the risk of problematic behaviour such as substance misuse. These factors are truancy from school or under-achievement, lack of positive role models in the family, poor parenting, family conflict and risk of harm, homelessness or poor housing, and mental illness, including cognitive and behavioural disorders. How can we change the lives affected by such a multitude of adverse factors?
	Youth resettlement pathways identified in the Youth Justice Board report Youth Resettlement are linked to those factors and to good case management and to the Every Child Matters agenda. Preventing children from becoming affected by such adverse factors must, of course, be a priority. Every Child Matters and the subsequent Children Act 2004 is a start, as are various Bills such as the Childcare and Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bills, potentially the Education Bill, and Sure Start. All emphasise the need to join up services to intervene in the causes of poor child welfare. The respect action plan includes new funding of £28 million to set up intensive networks of family support schemes and to provide parenting help. We must be vigilant as to how those good intentions are played out.
	Certainly, just punishing young people is not enough. Young people tell us constantly that there is not enough for them to do in their communities, and few centres where young people can safely gather. Once young people get into trouble, we have a problem—it is a difficult thing to reverse, although not impossible. We need to look carefully at what is happening across the youth justice system to make sure that we are not making things worse. The inquiry of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for the Howard League for Penal Reform, which has been referred to already, states in the section on psychological impacts:
	"Children in the secure children's estate are all vulnerable, needy and challenging".
	Yes, and many have been in care, and many have the problems I described earlier.
	That report identifies key forces that should be guaranteed to ensure that the best possible chance for rehabilitation exists. These include staff training, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, has referred, staffing levels, respect through responsibility based on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, exercise and outdoor activity, restorative justice, privacy for individuals and addressing mental health needs. STCs should provide opportunities for young people such as education, vocational courses, healthcare, exercise facilities and so on. They were set up to do so. There must by now be examples of good practice, and the noble Baroness has referred to one in Scotland. Can the Minister give us some examples and say how good practice might be shared?
	When I read examples given in the Carlile report and elsewhere I wonder what is going on and how we can hope to rehabilitate when young people clearly see themselves as being degraded and mistreated and having what dignity that might remain to them taken away. Strip searching is one example. The report talks of a boy called David who said that he felt it abnormal to have people looking at him naked. He was not told what was going to happen to him, and all orders were shouted. Later, when he was banging on his cell door because he was bored and upset, a group of officers in riot gear carrying plastic shields pushed him up to the window. He was then restrained by being held down naked on a stone floor.
	What I know of people—not just young people, who are more vulnerable than adults—is that violence begets violence and resentment, and that you do not treat damaged people by inflicting more damage. This is simply asking for trouble and for there to be little escape from the revolving door of custody, release and more custody. If the system worked, I might have more sympathy, but it clearly does not, at least not for most people.
	The national specification for substance misuse for juveniles in custody identifies effective practice, which includes engendering an atmosphere of safety, assessing need, providing education, providing treatment and support, making sure that there is an individual care plan that continues to support the young person, and ensuring that interventions are planned and connected to each other—again, joined-up action. This seems similar to what young people in custody need generally if they are to be rehabilitated. For some, rehabilitation may not be possible, but surely most young people will respond better to a regime of help and support rather than unmitigated and cruel punishment. We have inspections of STCs; we have anecdotal evidence; we have research. How do we translate good intentions into practice, and where are we going right?

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I thank and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, on obtaining this important and timely debate. I say important, because I believe that any time spent discussing the safeguarding of tomorrow's generation is important. I say timely, because the inquiry of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, of which I was very privileged to be a member, only recently published its report about the safeguarding of children. Only two days ago the Government's response to the paper produced by the joint chief inspectors on the safeguarding of children was also published.
	I was the Chief Inspector of Prisons when, for some reason or other, the previous Home Secretary, Michael Howard, decided it would be appropriate to introduce into this country a disastrous development in America known as the boot camps as a suitable way of dealing with our young offenders. I disagreed with him fundamentally then, and I disagree now. I quote from a report I wrote in 1997 about the treatment of young offenders:
	"Young prisoners will return to the community, and therefore it really does matter how they are treated in prison. The choice is ours. Either we can give them education, to make good the ravages of what they have denied themselves by truancy or been denied by exclusion, and opportunities for personal development within a structured, caring environment—which many have been denied in the chaotic circumstances of their home lives—and which we implicitly hold to be the way that can best lead to the development of responsible citizens, or we can continue on our present course, with all the damage that that is doing not only to the young people themselves but to the society to which they will return".
	I referred in the report to the tremendous inconsistency in the way in which we were treating children in custody. At the time that Michael Howard had the idea of secure training centres, there were local government secure homes, many of them extremely well run and very well staffed. At the other end of the scale, there were a number of young offender establishments in which, frankly, the treatment was outrageously poor and not only was the staffing negligent, the numbers of staff were far too few. On the first inspection of a juvenile establishment that I carried out, when I took an inspector of social services with me, he said that if this had been a social services establishment, it would have been closed because the treatment and conditions were not up to what was required by children.
	Then came the secure training centres. From the word go, they did not fit in anywhere—secure homes are part of social services provision under the Department of Health and young offender institutions are part of the Prison Service, coming under the Home Office. Secure training centres, run by private sector companies, did not come under either; they came under the Youth Justice Board when it started, which added a third source of direction.
	I seriously recommend that the Government look once again at the management and the direction of children in custody, wherever they are. Unless you have someone responsible and accountable for the delivery of what is done, working out what is appropriate and making certain that it is delivered, it will not happen. I recommended that in the same report in 1997—no action has been taken and there is still nobody in charge. The Youth Justice Board has oversight but that does not mean it checks what happens overall. I believe that until you get that right, you will not get the consistency of treatment which is crucial when you are dealing with children.
	I personally think it is an abomination that the age of criminal responsibility in this country should be 10. It is an abomination that children should be in prison. They should not be in prison—those are adult places. They should be somewhere else. But if they are in custody, the critical thing is to make certain that staff are trained and capable of looking after them. Again, we find inconsistency everywhere. Those in the social services centres are trained; those in the Prison Service are not yet properly trained.
	The secure training centres suffer from the problems that I have found with all private sector establishments. Turnover was too high, largely because of wages, and they were greatly understaffed. I was interested to see that the recent inspection reports of all four STCs showed serious staffing implications.
	At Oakhill, staffing numbers were regularly below acceptable levels for 80 places. There were no regular staff meetings. There was no external line manager to monitor the performance of the secure training centre. At Rainsbrook, roles and responsibilities for managers in the new structure had not yet been made sufficiently clear for lines of accountability to be fully understood. At Medway, active staff numbers are to remain low, placing significant pressures on the establishment. The external manager for the centre was acting as the director; therefore, the centre did not have an external manager to monitor its performance. At Hassockfield, supervision of staff needs to occur and to be recorded more consistently. Management development should be a feature of the next stage of development planning. And so on.
	We have heard a lot about the treatment, the conditions and their unacceptability. There are masses of solutions and ideas out there; they all refer to the same things—direction and staffing. I really hope that the Government will at last listen to what people have been saying, year after year, and put those two things right, because they are fundamental to any development which has this desperately important role of safeguarding the treatment of our children who are in custody.

The Earl of Listowel: Hear, hear.

Baroness Stern: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, for arranging this debate, for her dedication in visiting the secure training centres and finding out what they are really like and, most of all, for sharing with this House her long expertise in childcare, her deep understanding of the needs of children and her clear vision from that perspective of why what has been set up and delivered through the secure training centres is so very wrong.
	Thanks to the heroic and persistent work of Sally Keeble MP and the very searching work done by the inquiry team led by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, we now know enough to be sure that something is deeply wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, says in his introduction that the way children are treated in penal custody would in other circumstances,
	"trigger a child protection investigation and could even result in criminal charges".
	In its visits to STCs the inquiry found in one or other of them a lack of privacy in that staff could see the children having their showers. It found that the method of restraint used in STCs can involve the use of pain, particularly to the nose, and that restraint was used 3,289 times in 2003 for fewer than 200 children at any one time. Figures for one STC also showed that, within an 18-month period, single separation—which is a euphemism for solitary confinement—was used 285 times. STCs now use handcuffs, and Sally Keeble MP found that handcuffs were used 11 times in one month in one STC last year.
	This is a grim and dismal picture. This treatment is being meted out to children as young as 12—not tough, well-balanced, secure and happy children; of course not. Seventy-seven per cent of them, or nearly eight out of 10, were designated by the Youth Justice Board in September 2005 as "vulnerable". It may be that some observers, people on the outside who are concerned with childcare and crime prevention, are confused. They may think, "How can this be going on when these children are placed by the Youth Justice Board, which is a very respectable body run by people well known for their knowledge in the field?". Perhaps people will think that it is not as bad as it sounds—perhaps they will think that it is alright. So it is important to say clearly that it is not alright—it is absolutely not alright.
	A Youth Justice Board document called Strategy for the Secure Estate for Children and Young People refers, on page 5, under the heading "Achievements", to
	"the expansion of secure training centre . . . provision by 144 places".
	That is set out as an achievement. When we read that, we have to ask what can be guiding the board in making its decisions about the care of the vulnerable children entrusted to it. That addition of 144 places was hailed as an achievement not in a vacuum but after there had been deaths, after the information that restraints had been used in the STCs 11,593 times since 1999 and, presumably, with a knowledge of the strip searching and the use of handcuffs, as well as the knowledge of the criticisms by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Council of Europe human rights commissioner. Since then, more contracts have been signed for units to accommodate young girls, some of them with babies. A United States judge recently talked about the moral blindness creeping into the criminal justice system. Is it, we must ask, infecting the Youth Justice Board? I make it clear that that is a criticism not of the multinational security companies that provide these places but of those who contract with them.
	Finally, we must ask why we here in Parliament have not been more determined in our efforts to monitor what is going on and bring abuses to light. Here we face a difficulty, because information is very hard to come by. Much of the information that we have heard tonight comes not from official reports nor from inspection reports by the Commission for Social Care Inspection, but from parliamentary Questions and a Howard League inquiry. We do not have the sort of information that we have about prisons, which comes to us from reports of the Chief Inspector of Prisons. The Youth Justice Board glossy documents are not informative.
	On 26 January, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, following up an earlier letter that said:
	"The Committee's report on compliance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child concluded that the level of physical restraint experienced by children in detention represented an unacceptable contravention of the Convention on the Rights of the Child".
	In our subsequent letter, we said:
	"Regular updates on the staffing levels Secure Training Centres, as well as on the use of restraints and non-accidental injuries (including self-harm) would enable Parliament, and the Committee, to exercise an effective scrutiny role on a matter which is significant in the protection of the human rights of particularly vulnerable children".
	We went on to ask if the Home Office could report to Parliament with regularly updated information, perhaps every three months.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House when the Home Office is likely to reply to that suggestion and if the reply is likely to be positive, as I very much hope it will be.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, for securing this debate and for her persistent and passionate advocacy of children in secure training centres. I welcome the fact that the Minister responding has social work training and will understand the concerns expressed in the House that children are being placed in such inappropriate settings and that the social care model is the correct one.
	I wish to address the issue of training, support and supervision for staff in secure training centres, making a comparison with provision in children's homes. We know that there is, sadly, an over-representation of children in local authority care in the criminal justice system. Many of the troubled and troubling children in children's homes are not that different from those in secure training centres. Good practice in children's homes should be very similar to good practice in secure training centres. The Social Exclusion Unit identified 60 per cent of children coming into care as having had experience of abuse or neglect and a further 10 per cent of a family breakdown. The Office for National Statistics found that in children's homes, which tend to take the most vulnerable and damaged young people, 68 per cent had mental disorders and 56 per cent had conduct disorders, which typically would include theft, fire-setting and other problems. There is a correspondence between the groups—although I am not saying that most children in children's homes are going to end up in the criminal justice system, or will misbehave in that way or have those troubles.
	In 1998, 70 to 80 per cent of staff in children's homes had no relevant qualification to work with these vulnerable children, and the most vulnerable children were being cared for by the least qualified staff. I am very glad that the Government recognised that and set a target that 80 per cent of such staff should have, by September last year, a national vocational qualification level 3 in childcare. That is a very basic start but it is a good start in the right direction.
	Why is training for staff so important? Of course it is necessary to understand control and restraint and to use it appropriately, and there are other important areas, but to my mind the crucial element is an understanding of child development. What flows from that is an understanding on the part of staff why one-to-one supervision with their manager is crucial to their successful functioning and why consultancy, which is normally to the staff group by a psychologist, psychiatrist or a child psychotherapist on an ongoing regular basis, is necessary and to be sought for. Training is vital for the confidence of staff to become people who learn throughout their time in residential settings and secure training centres to think about and to reflect on their practice, and to become sensitive and supportive individuals working in these difficult environments. It is the social care model.
	An article from the Scottish Journal of Residential Child Care by Andrew Kendrick, called "'A Different Way to Look at Things': The Development of Consultancy in a Residential Service for Children and Young People", from February-March 2005 states:
	"The support of consultancy and the tasks associated with consultation are considered to play a vital role in the development of good practice in residential care and in safeguarding children and young people. Back in the 1970s, Berry . . . recommended that all residential workers should have opportunities for support and consultation and 'every residential unit requires a special senior supporter who devotes himself . . . to the staff without being directly responsible for the children . . . a consultant, counsellor, supervisor or therapist' . . . More recently, however, Warner"—
	now the noble Lord, Lord Warner, in his report on staff in children's homes, called Choosing with Care—
	"highlighted that too often staff in children's homes are left to cope with abused, disturbed and violent young people",
	so similar to those in secure training centres,
	"without access to the specialist psychiatric and psychological services that are needed . . . He stressed the need for support from specialists in other agencies, such as child psychiatrists and educational psychologists, and for staff care schemes such as stress counselling".
	The management of stress is very important to this area too.
	Noble Lords have referred to the high vacancy rates throughout the secure training centre provisions. In children's homes last year vacancy rates were generally more than 11 per cent, and about 22 per cent in London, even higher than among child and family social workers, where there is the next highest level of vacancy in the social care arena. Many children's homes still do not have the support described as necessary by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, as I know very well.
	I conclude by asking the Minister if he would be good enough, when the contracts for these centres are next negotiated and the parameters set for the training, supervision and support for staff, to inform Peers taking part in the debate tonight so we can help shape the framework for the training and support of staff in these settings. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, for getting this debate at such an opportune time. It is particularly important because of her commitment to child welfare, with which we are all so familiar.
	I would like to talk about public-private partnerships, which the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, have referred to in different ways. The noble Lord referred to the difficult place the secure training centres have in the profile, with the rather more structured organisations of the Department of Health and the Home Office lying on either side. I do not want to go into the politics of the public-private partnerships. These were started by the Conservative government, and have been inherited by this one.
	The problem must be addressed. The centres are more complicated, but the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, has made suggestions for a more thorough monitoring of them. I happen to be the chairman of an independent hospital, and our inspection standards are higher than those applying to the National Health Service. I gather the reverse is true of these secure training centres. It is a concept that has so many advantages, and must be made to work so that the poor relation of the childcare industry is looked after.
	There has been reference to the very good debate in another place by Sally Keeble. She raised the concerns of so many at the frequent use of restraints, which I think may have come as a surprise to many people. That was reinforced by the Carlile report, of which we have heard tonight. Let us be under no illusion about the violent behaviour that these children, of an average age of 14, can display, but she has paid particular attention to the restraints used, and that has been taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. It is pleasing that the double restraint and other methods have been either abandoned or recommended to be.
	The restraint has to be a balance between humaneness and effectiveness. That is the challenge to these centres. Sally Keeble made the important point that physical control, which is supposed only to be used for the protection of residents and staff, appears in certain cases to have been used as a means of discipline, which is not permitted.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, has referred to the huge cost of inmates—I think they are called trainees—in these institutions, which is something like six times that of the most expensive independent school. One of the questions that has puzzled me is the alarming statistic of the assault rate in the centres being something like 10 times that of young offender institutions.
	I refer back to the noble Baroness's comparison with Scottish children's homes. Allowing for her loyalty as a Scot, she painted a very impressive picture. We on these Benches have always criticised the Government for not paying attention to the practice in other countries with regard to the health service. I wonder whether the Home Office should not look again, much nearer home in this case, at the practice in Scotland and see what can be learnt. I gather the Welsh experience is also a good one. We have devolution. There is a chance to gain from apparently more successful and more humane treatment in Scotland, and to see whether that can be adapted to England. This has been a very interesting debate, with the usual high quality of speakers. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I join in the general congratulations and thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, on raising this important subject for debate this evening. I only wish we had a bigger audience for it, because it is certainly a subject that should command greater interest, not least because of the important issues it touches on.
	The noble Baroness made a number of important points, some of which I shall pick up on in what I say, but the key thing I take away from her contribution was that she made an unfavourable comparison between the STCs and the secure council-run homes that are provided. She rather favoured the way the latter operate. That is important, and the points of comparison are fairly critical to the way we look at this issue.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, made a special plea that healthcare standards and education should be to the highest level, and that we should focus strongly on good practice in STCs. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, expressed his important views trenchantly as usual, which need to be taken account of, not least because of his vast experience in this field as an inspector. I listened very carefully, as ever, to what the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, had to say. She asserted at one point that there was something deeply wrong with STCs. From a government perspective I take issue with that, but the issues she raised of restraints, single separation, handcuff use and strip searches are of concern and require careful use and monitoring.
	The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, made important points, in particular about training and the quality of work undertaken in the establishments. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, for his contributions on PPPs, drawing our attention to assault levels and the lessons that can be learnt from devolution.
	This has been a well informed debate, as one would expect from the cast involved. The use of custody for young people is, and is bound to be, a contentious subject about which people have very strong views. People in general firmly believe that custody has to be available as a last resort in response to the most serious offending, a view the Government fully share. But we also believe that, wherever possible, young people who commit offences other than the most serious should be dealt with in the community. Custodial establishments therefore have a limited role in response to offending by under-18s, but a vital one. At their best, they can offer young people the chance of a complete change of direction, by guiding them towards positive and worthwhile activities and away from the unproductive, sometimes destructive, life many of them have been leading. That is an essential part of what secure training centres are trying to achieve. Their emphasis on education, and on a full day of purposeful activity, can provide a new direction to lives previously lacking in purpose.
	How we treat young people in custody and find means to steer them away from offending into that more positive and productive way of life is a critical question. The recent report by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, on behalf of the Howard League for Penal Reform has usefully brought one aspect of the custody of young people to public attention. It is important to note that my ministerial colleagues will meet the noble Lord at the end of this month to discuss his findings. His report concerns a very specific part of how we treat young people in custody—what is generally referred to as behaviour management. He looked at behaviour management across the whole of the juvenile estate. By contrast, the noble Baroness raised the more general questions of the role and purpose of one particular part of that estate—the four secure training centres.
	It may help your Lordships if I briefly summarise the history of STCs. They began in the 1990s as establishments for young offenders between the ages of 12 and 14 who had been sentenced to a secure training order. The STO, which was introduced by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, was a short-lived order. It was replaced in 2000 by our Government with the detention and training order. The contract for the first centre at Medway in Rochester was signed in 1997 and the centre opened in April 1998 with places for 40 young people. A further two centres of similar size at Rainsbrook, near Rugby, and Hassockfield in County Durham opened in 1999. In 2002 capacity at Medway and Rainsbrook was increased to 76 beds and at Hassockfield to 42. A fourth centre, Oakhill in Milton Keynes, opened in August 2004 with places for 80 young people. In all, the four centres can accommodate up to 274 people—a small number.
	The detention and training order, which replaced the STO in April 2000, was available for young offenders aged 12 to 17. The STCs therefore began taking a wider age range. As well as DTO trainees, the wider intake included young people serving longer terms of detention under Sections 90 and 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 enabled young people who had been remanded to the care of a local authority with a security requirement to be placed in a secure training centre with the consent of the Secretary of State.
	Secure training centres as they have developed now accommodate young people of both sexes between the ages of 12 and 17 who have either received a custodial sentence or have been remanded to secure care. Why do we send young people to custody? We do it because their offending is so serious that there is no realistic alternative. We do it to protect the public. People expect—and are entitled to expect—that the justice system will take proportionate measures to protect them from significant harm. While the young person is in custody there is an opportunity to try to steer him or her away from offending behaviour and into useful and life-enhancing activities. Most young people who go to custody serve short sentences and are not out of the community for a very long period. It is essential therefore to try to ensure that when they are released they do not simply start again where they left off; in other words, that they do not return to offending. The period in custody provides the chance to break what has usually become a pattern of offending and to prepare the young person for a new life after custody. For that reason detention and training orders, which are the main custodial sentence for under-18s, are structured in two parts with the first half spent in custody and the second under supervision in the community. Work begun in custody—for example, in improving literacy and numeracy—can form the basis for continued education or training after release.
	Of course, not all young people serving custodial sentences are placed in a secure training centre. Most—about 85 per cent—are placed in youth offender institutions run by the Prison Service. The remaining 15 per cent are divided roughly equally between STCs, which are run by private firms under contract to the Youth Justice Board, and secure children's homes, which are run by local authorities. Each type of establishment has its own characteristics. Young offender institutions are generally larger establishments for offenders aged 15 to 17. Secure training centres and secure children's homes take predominantly a younger age group though they also accommodate some older trainees who are particularly vulnerable. The ethos of secure training centres and secure children's homes is similar. STCs are larger, as I said, but the trainees live in small units that house up to eight, and both types of establishment have a very high staff-to-trainee ratio, which allows trainees to receive a great deal of individual attention.
	Because they are larger than secure children's homes, STCs can provide a more varied regime. Their particular strength is in education, which continues all through the year—there are no school holidays—and enables trainees serving longer terms to make real progress. This is very important because, as we know, studies have shown that persistent offending and low educational attainment are closely linked. Most trainees have serious problems with literacy and numeracy. It is heartening, therefore, that in 2003–04—the latest year for which figures are available—100 per cent of STC trainees improved their literacy and numeracy by at least one skill level. That is a better performance than was achieved in either young offender institutions or secure children's homes.
	There has, of course, been much concern about two deaths that occurred at Rainsbrook and Hassockfield in 2004. The death of any young person in custody or elsewhere is always a tragedy. I cannot comment on the events surrounding the deaths of Gareth Myatt and Adam Rickwood because investigations are in progress and inquests have yet to be held. However, I can assure the House that the Government and the Youth Justice Board are taking all possible measures to safeguard young people in STCs.
	I know there is a body of opinion which holds that the private sector has no role to play in the provision of custody, but I was interested to note that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, speaking at the launch of his report, said that he did not mind whether a custodial establishment was run by the public or private sector as long as it was run well. That is a very practical and sensible view. I think it is now generally agreed that the introduction of privately run prisons has helped to raise standards in the adult estate and I believe that the secure training centres are playing a similar role in the secure estate for children and young people. It is also true that secure training centres are able to take some trainees whose behaviour cannot be managed effectively in a secure children's home.
	STCs have made a valuable contribution to the secure estate for children and young people, generally providing high standards of care and education to very difficult and often very troubled young people. They are part of our vision of a diversified estate which provides for a variety of needs and demands. Those who advocate limiting custodial provision to secure children's homes should face the fact that those homes are not suitable for many young offenders and that they would not be able to cope with them.
	A number of points have been raised, some of which I shall try to cover in the brief time available to me in which to speak. The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, argued the case for small, local SCHs. The Youth Justice Board purchases 235 places in secure children's homes and we fully accord with the valuable role that they play in the special circumstances for young trainees. The noble Baroness asked about a strategic review. In November the Youth Justice Board published its strategy for the secure estate for children and young people and outlined plans for improving provision, including a new capital programme, additional training of staff and enhanced regimes. That has now been taken forward.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, made reference to good practice. I argue that the 25 hours per week of taught lesson time, the classes taking place in small groups with highly qualified teaching staff, and the fact that—as I said earlier—100 per cent of trainees serving sentences of six months or more have improved literacy and numeracy by at least one skill level is evidence of increased good practice within the estate.
	My time is now up, sadly. Other points were made about strip searching which I shall try to address in correspondence. The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, asked a question in response to a letter seeking regular reports to Parliament on restraint. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, has replied to Andrew Dismore MP, the chair of the Human Rights Committee, and promised that regular reports would be made. I repeat that commitment this evening. It is very important that that information is put into the public domain.
	I again thank the noble Baroness for her persistence on this issue, as ever. It is some years since we had a debate on STCs, on which the House clearly needs to be advised regularly. We undertake to do all that we can to ensure that that is the case.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.32 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.30 to 8.32 pm.]

Civil Aviation Bill

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
	[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 21:
	After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—
	"RELIEF FROM LIABILITY IN THE EVENT OF WAR ETC.
	(1) Section 76 of the Civil Aviation Act 1983 (c. 16) (liability of aircraft in respect of trespass, nuisance and surface damage) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (2) for "subsection (3)" substitute "subsections (3) and (5)".
	(3) After subsection (4) insert—
	"(5) No liability shall be incurred by the owner of the aircraft (or the person to whom it has been demised, let or hired out) if he proves that material loss or damage as aforesaid—
	(a) resulted from an act of war, hostilities, civil war or insurrection, or
	(b) was due wholly to anything done or omitted to be done by another person, not being a servant or agent of the owner (or of the person to whom it has been demised, let or hired out) with intent to do damage.""

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I am pleased to share the amendment with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, who is not in the Chamber at the moment. Noble Lords will no doubt recall the substance of the amendment from Grand Committee. I do not want to go through the whole subject again, but it is important that I repeat some of the points on the amendment, which is designed to remove a manifest injustice and a potential financial threat to aircraft operators of all nationalities using our airspace. The amendment would achieve that by introducing provisions for civil aviation that are similar to those currently enjoyed by merchant shipping. The noble Baroness sitting opposite will remember that we debated the Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Bill. What I am suggesting here is something similar to that.
	I do not wish to repeat all the arguments in favour of what I consider to be a sensible amendment, but I wish to address some of the apparent objections made by the Minister during our previous debate. He was of the view that if aircraft owners are relieved of the burden of paying for damage on the ground caused by terrorists, that burden would fall immediately and exclusively on the British taxpayer. That is not the case. Where human victims are concerned, there is an existing responsibility assumed by the state since 1964 and facilitated by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, the CICA. All 25 EU states are required to have similar schemes in operation. Nor is it the case in relation to property damage, which was the burden of the Minister's objection. As far as I am aware, and according to the legal experts I consulted, the state has no liability to compensate businesses or property owners who are damaged by criminals or terrorists.
	That is why since 1993 we have had a system to ensure that adequate commercial insurance may be in place to cover terrorism risks, supported by the reinsurance vehicle known as the Pool Re. The scheme was amended in the light of 9/11, but does not so far cover household insurance. That cost is met by premiums paid, not by the Treasury. Noble Lords can see that in relation to the separate needs of human victims and business or property interests arising out of terrorism, we have existing schemes of compensation for humans, and insurance for the property interests.
	As noble Lords will understand, the resources of an aircraft owner are inevitably finite. The main resource of the aircraft owner or operator will be an insurance policy with a maximum liability limit which I am told is around $2 billion. It is sometimes more and sometimes less, but it is always a great deal more than the European minimum requirements. We are told that the total cost of 9/11 as paid by insurers and by the US Government approached $40 billion. If anything on the scale of 9/11 should succeed over here, I cannot imagine that the cost would be anywhere near the US total. But even if it approached, say, only one-tenth of that total for one aircraft, it would probably transcend the limits of the airline's insurance policy and would probably bankrupt the airline and/or the aircraft owner. In those circumstances no claimant, human or property, could receive full compensation; all would be reduced to a dividend after lengthy legal processes. Only the CICA would provide reasonable and timely compensation.
	As your Lordships' House will recall, the body of the amendment is copied from the main defences allowed to a ship owner by the Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Bill in relation to oil pollution. Unfortunately, the Minister seemed to misunderstand the purpose of this amendment when he commented in Committee:
	"So it looks as though the noble Lord has extrapolated from the maritime example and has substituted for the international fund the UK Government and the taxpayer".—[Official Report, 8/12/05; col. GC 175.]
	That is not the case. The International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds are designed to provide compensation in excess of the ship owner's liability. However, that is incidental, since the amendment does not seek to substitute to the British taxpayer for some aviation version of the International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds. What is crucial is that neither the IOPC Funds nor ship owners are liable if it can be proved that the pollution damage resulted from an act of war, civil war or insurrection. That defence is only part of what has been taken from Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Act.
	The central purpose of the amendment is to alleviate a manifest injustice that uniquely and adversely affects British and foreign aircraft owners. It would seem entirely sensible to use the opportunity afforded in the Bill to address that deficiency and furnish aviation with the same defences available to ship owners. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is in the Chamber to add to this. I beg to move.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment, which is helpful not only to British interests but to foreign airlines which are affected by the work of terrorists and by the impact of our law on absolute liability.
	I do not confine my attention solely to British interests, because our law applies to all aircraft and to their owners. For that reason we can recognise that the situation that we envisage is more universal. I suspect that my noble friend Lord Davies was merely laying the ground when we discussed this matter in Grand Committee and he stated the Government's preference for some form of international agreement. He concluded that the International Civil Aviation Organisation, which was convening a meeting, might revise the 1952 Rome convention—but, as he said, the conclusion to those negotiations would take years. I am not sure that there will be a positive outcome on this issue. We are saying—and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, would agree—that now is the time that we can do something about the matter, not wait until the conclusion of the ICAO negotiations.
	It is not as if we have not experienced such situations in this country—only last July, here in London, there was a threat that involved a large number of people being injured as a result of the terrorist attacks. We are not all that far from what happened on 11 September. With this amendment, we can take immediate and sensible steps in relation to the threat. We are able to protect both British and foreign interests. There will be no additional impost affecting the British taxpayer. I repeat: to wait for the outcome of the international deliberations is not acceptable.
	Therefore, I am prepared to support the amendment. First, it allows the aircraft owner to defend himself in the event of a criminal or terrorist attack from the ground or the air. That is precisely what we were arguing for in Grand Committee and was the subject of my amendment. Secondly, for the aircraft owner the amendment adds a conventional defence, already approved in principle by Parliament, if an aircraft crash resulted from an act of war, hostilities, civil war or insurrection. Thirdly, I understand that the amendment is the preferred choice of leading airline lawyers. But most important, as I said, there is no additional burden on British taxpayers.
	Of course, this is a complicated issue; it is not something that we can resolve immediately. I hope that this amendment will be withdrawn, but I think that we ought to come back to the issue on Third Reading, because it is of vital concern not only to the British taxpayer, but internationally.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. We had the advantage in Committee—admittedly, three months ago—of rehearsing most of these arguments. From the Government's point of view, not much has changed in that period, so I am afraid neither will the Government's response.
	The noble Lord is seeking a fundamental change in the way in which the UK legislates for airline liability for surface damage caused by an aircraft. I am afraid that we do not think that the proposal in the amendment is the way forward. It seems that the exclusions to liability proposed in the amendment have been taken from maritime law—I raised this issue in Committee. In maritime law, these issues obtain only in specific circumstances, which do not exist in aviation law. We do not sign up to agreements in aviation in the same way as we do with regard to maritime matters.
	The broadening of the removal of liability to include,
	"an act of war, hostilities, civil war or insurrection",
	raises a number of fundamental issues. I pay tribute to both noble Lords who have spoken, as they dealt with some of those fundamental issues, although one or two were omitted. When we talk of an exclusion for an act of war, which is to say a course of hostility engaged in by an entity with significant attributes of sovereignty, or an exclusion for hostilities, which is to say hostile acts committed when a state of war is in existence and committed by persons acting as agents of sovereign powers, then we are immediately addressing an international issue. Yet the noble Lords' amendment is silent about this vital dimension to the debate. It proposes a UK solution.
	Air travel is by its very nature international. It is not an area where it makes sense for the UK to act on its own. It would be illogical to limit airlines' liability for events in the UK, including the liability of foreign airlines on our territory, without also dealing with the liability of UK airlines for events on foreign territory. The proposal seems to treat the UK as somehow separate from the rest of the world. I maintain that that is an artificiality, which we cannot accept.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, what would happen if there was no conclusion internationally? Can we take any action at all?

Lord Davies of Oldham: Well, my Lords, if there was no conclusion internationally, we would be where we are now, which I agree with my noble friend is an unsatisfactory position. That is why we are working to make progress towards international solutions to this, as I will try to identify in a moment.
	The amendment proposes not only a national solution, but national support for the compensation funds involved. It seems to imply that the Government should pay or that the full costs of damage caused by such events should fall on the UK taxpayer. Of course, the Government are concerned about such a potential development.
	The issue was presented forcefully in Committee by noble Lords who spoke on that occasion, and the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has returned to the issue today. We have, of course, given the matter careful thought, because we are aware that the present situation is very difficult. However, our way forward is this: because aviation is a truly international business, we believe that the solution to issues of this kind must be found through international agreement. In the longer term, a solution to the problem of capping airlines' liability with respect to third parties is most likely to come via some form of international agreement. This looks most likely in the context of the work currently being undertaken by the International Civil Aviation Organisation to revise the 1952 Rome convention on third-party liability, although I accept the point made by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis that we are some way off reaching agreement in that area. In the shorter term, we need to be ready in case airlines are exposed to uninsurable risks. That was the burden of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield.
	After 11 September 2001, we stated:
	"Should another terrorist incident lead to a lack of third party insurance, such that the UK aviation industry was unable to operate, the Government's intention would be to intervene as it did after September 11th".
	That remains the Government's position. We are aware of calls by the aviation industry for states to indemnify airlines against third party war and terrorism risks. However, in balancing the risk, we favour a solution that maintains as much market involvement as possible and seeks to maximise the amount of commercial insurance available.
	I regret that changing the status quo in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, proposes would strike a wrong note about the Government's resolve to deter terrorism. I know that the noble Lord shares that resolve. It would signal that terrorism and its consequences are the responsibility of the state and that financial reparation for such acts should be transferred wholly to the British taxpayer. We do not intend to exempt or limit airlines' liability through UK legislation in those terms. We recognise the difficulties of the situation. We certainly are not prepared to see our airlines fail to operate, but the solution has to be an international agreement; we cannot do it uniquely and alone through UK legislation. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. He acknowledged that the situation now is not very good—I think he said that it was imperfect—and he went on to say that we should find an international solution. Obviously we would all like that to happen. But, if it does not happen, it is our duty as a British Parliament to try to protect the interests of British businesses and so on. I shall analyse what the Minister said but, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, indicated, we may have to return to this matter.
	I had hoped that the Government could give us a little more reassurance that there might be a way forward if we did not get an international solution. The situation is not right and something needs to be done about it to protect British interests. I shall withdraw the amendment today and reflect on it before Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness D'Souza: moved Amendment No. 22:
	After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—
	"AIRCRAFT INVOLVED IN ACTS OF RENDITION
	(1) If the Secretary of State is aware of intelligence that any aircraft entering British airspace is being, has been or may be involved in an act of unlawful rendition then he may require that aircraft to land at a designated suitable airport.
	(2) If any plane is required to land in accordance with subsection (1) a responsible person shall as soon as practicable—
	(a) enter the aircraft; or
	(b) arrange for a police constable or authorised officer of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to enter the aircraft.
	(3) If the Secretary of State or other responsible person is aware of intelligence that an aircraft using airport facilities in the United Kingdom is being, has been or may be involved in an act of unlawful rendition then a responsible person may make arrangements to—
	(a) enter the aircraft; or
	(b) arrange for a police constable or an authorised officer of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to enter the aircraft.
	(4) A person who enters an aircraft under subsection (2) or (3) shall endeavour to ascertain—
	(a) whether the aircraft is being or has been used for an act of unlawful rendition;
	(b) whether a criminal offence has been committed;
	(c) whether allowing the aircraft to continue could place the United Kingdom in breach of its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights;
	and for these purposes the person may search the aircraft.
	(5) In order to comply with a power under subsection (4) any item may be removed from the aircraft.
	(6) For the purposes of this section—
	"an act of unlawful rendition" is an act involving the transportation of a person to a territory where international human rights standards, in particular protections against torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, are not observed, such transportation not being in accordance with formal lawful extradition or deportation procedures;
	"a responsible person" means—
	(a) the chief officer of police of a police force maintained for a police area in England and Wales;
	(b) the chief constable of a police force maintained under the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 (c. 77);
	(c) the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland;
	(d) one of the Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs."

Baroness D'Souza: My Lords, I am fully aware that we are on Report and I will therefore be as brief and to the point as I can. However, this is an important matter: the amendment aims to provide a simple but effective mechanism to investigate aircraft suspected of being involved in the illegal practice of extraordinary rendition.
	There is no suggestion that the UK Government are practising, or have ever practised, extraordinary rendition in any form—of course not. But up until Monday of this week, there was circumstantial evidence to suggest that the UK may have facilitated this practice by allowing refuelling stops by aircraft used by the US Government or private aircraft owned or leased by the CIA for the purpose of transporting detainees to a third country for interrogation. Yesterday, the Armed Forces Minister, Adam Ingram, disclosed that aircraft suspected of being used by the CIA had in fact landed at British military airfields.
	When this issue was first raised in Grand Committee last December, it was judged to be both inappropriate and inapplicable in large part due to the terms of the Chicago convention. However, that is now acknowledged by the Government to be irrelevant, and I quote the answer given by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, in response to a Written Question from the noble Lord, Lord Lester:
	"Nothing in the Chicago convention restricts the right of the appropriate authorities under UK law to board an aircraft for the purpose of arresting a person who they have reasonable grounds to suspect has committed or is committing an offence".—[Official Report, 1/3/06; col. WA 62.]
	In fact, research carried out by experts in international transport law shows that the Chicago convention and the later Tokyo convention impose a positive duty on the part of government to investigate. The Tokyo convention, for example, allows a state to interfere with an aircraft in flight if,
	"the exercise of jurisdiction is necessary to ensure the observance of any obligation of such State under a multilateral international agreement".
	We are dealing here with illegal seizing, transport and possible—even likely—torture of individuals. This practice infringes just about every human rights treaty on the books, including the torture convention, which, as is well recognised, carries an absolute prohibition of torture, no matter what the circumstances.
	The facts surrounding this practice of extraordinary rendition are hard to come by. However, such is the concern, uncertainty and suspicion that it has occurred and continues to occur, possibly on a regular basis, that no fewer than 10 European member states have set up official inquiries into US transport and CIA flights into their respective countries. The Secretary-General of the Council of Europe reported last week on a year-long study into extraordinary rendition, in which he said:
	"It would appear that most of Europe is a happy hunting ground for foreign security services".
	He goes on to say that,
	"hardly any country . . . has any legal provision to ensure effective oversight of the activities of foreign security services on their territory".
	I quote again:
	"European skies appear to be excessively open . . . very few countries seem to have adopted an adequate and effective way to monitor who and what is transiting their airports and airspace. Indeed, no member state appears to have established any kind of procedure in order to assess whether civil aircraft are used for purposes which would be incompatible with internationally recognised human rights standards. This is alarming because the explanations provided on the specific point of controls over aircraft allegedly used for rendition show that existing procedures do not provide adequate safeguards against abuse".
	The former Secretary of State, Mr Colin Powell, is quoted in a report by the Swiss Senator Mr Dick Marty as accusing a number of European countries of hypocrisy in that, while benefiting from the intelligence that the Americans gather, they publicly distance themselves from the methods by which it is obtained. The UK National Air Traffic Services confirmed on 22 February of this year that in the past five years two aircraft believed to have been chartered by the CIA, as identified by their registration numbers, had passed through the UK on more than 200 occasions.
	The Government, in denying any awareness of extraordinary rendition, have relied heavily on a firm statement made by the current Secretary of State, Miss Condoleezza Rice, just prior to her departure for a European tour last December, in which her very carefully crafted words denied any involvement in extraordinary rendition. However, we have to be very cautious here. The US has derogated from the "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" clause of the UN torture convention. This allows it to interpret such acts as falling short of torture. Moreover, the wording of the statement includes the sentence,
	"the US has not and will not transport anyone to a country where the United States believes that the person will be tortured".
	It could well be argued that what the US believes does not necessarily conform to the beliefs of the international human rights community.
	I am as interested in preventing terrorist acts as anyone else. I do not wish to appear a harridan, but the practice of extraordinary rendition is monstrous and monstrously illegal. The amendment before your Lordships, for which I gratefully acknowledge the painstaking work of Liberty, Redress, the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture and several legal experts, is straightforward and highly relevant to the Civil Aviation Bill in that it deals with a mechanism to ensure that aircraft flights conform with the statutory obligations of the Government. It simply empowers the appropriate authorities to require aircraft suspected of being involved in extraordinary rendition to land and to be searched. I suggest that this is the only way in which dangerous rumours and suspicions can be put to rest and any future acts of extraordinary rendition via the UK can be pre-empted. I beg to move.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have put my name to this amendment because I think it is essential that this issue should be confronted. In my view, it demands international action. I regard extraordinary rendition as absolutely abhorrent. I am not persuaded that this Bill is the right vehicle for our views on this. We ought to return to this issue separately; I would welcome the views of the House on this subject. Unfortunately, we cannot currently do justice to that position. I want to make it plain, however, that I, among many Labour people, think that what is being envisaged and done in our name is absolutely unacceptable.

Lord Garden: My Lords, I support this amendment, which is also in my name. The credit for it, however, must go to the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, for having seized the opportunity that the Bill gives us to address the serious problem of rendition.
	We explored the issue in Grand Committee, and the noble Baroness has explained the importance of clarity in this area. We accept the Government's assurances that they will not facilitate rendition of people through UK airspace or airfields. After all, in Grand Committee the Minister gave us such an assurance in the strongest of terms:
	"There is not a Member in this Committee, not a Member in this House and not a Member in another place who is not greatly exercised about the issues. It has been made clear by the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary that our abhorrence of the concept of torture is such that we will have no compliant part in it in any shape or form".
	These are strong assurances. I am sure that your Lordships will welcome such assurances from the government Benches.
	In Grand Committee, the Minister made it clear that the problem was that he saw the amendment as one which would wreck the Bill:
	"We could not possibly put into legislation an amendment which abrogated our obligations under international conventions for air travel".—[Official Report, 8/12/05; GC169.]
	As we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, he should be happy now, because we have done the necessary work to show that that was a misconception. We understand that, in the pressure of Grand Committee, one can often make mistakes about the intricacies of international law. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, that the Chicago convention will be fine under this; we have had it from our expert air legal adviser, Professor Richard Gardiner of the University College London, that Tokyo convention Articles 3.3 and 3.4 come into play. All these things make it possible for this amendment to work.
	I am not a lawyer, but it seems that we all agree that we must investigate and then prevent flights which facilitate torture, and that we are allowed to do so under international aviation conventions. This amendment gives us a way to make it happen. I trust that the Government will now accept it, having had an opportunity to look at our international obligations in more detail than was possible in Grand Committee.
	One more aspect which concerns me is the exchange of correspondence between Adam Ingram, the Defence Minister in the other place, and my right honourable friend Sir Menzies Campbell, reported in yesterday's Guardian. That has lifted the lid on the involvement of military airfields in providing access to these mysterious CIA-sponsored aircraft. In Grand Committee, I asked the Minister for some explanation of the status of charter aircraft operating on behalf of a foreign government, but received no answer. Now that we know that these aircraft operate through RAF Brize Norton and RAF Northolt, we need to think through what that means for how they are handled.
	RAF Northolt will be familiar to those who have had ministerial appointments. It is a rather special airfield; it is where ministerial, Royal and other VIP flights operate from. It is also, because of its location close to Heathrow, restricted in the number of movements allowed, so I assume that the authorities take some interest in every flight authorised into and out of RAF Northolt. I suggest that easyJet might find it difficult to get slots there.
	Presumably the station commander has some guidance about which flights he is allowed to accept, or perhaps a direction from Her Majesty's Government. These fights cannot count obviously as United States military flights because the military does not operate them. Whatever their status—I would be interested to know how the Minister sees their status—I trust that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has given his, as always, very useful advice to the Chief of the Defence Staff, who in turn can relay it to the group captain at Northolt just to ensure that he is not committing an illegal act by providing facilities for an aircraft that might be involved in extraordinary rendition.
	The amendment would give much-needed clarity on what must be done, and, we can assume, would ensure that both the civil and military authorities would take appropriate action when they needed to follow up suspicions. I look forward to hearing from the Government their full support for it.

Lord Roper: My Lords, I made a brief intervention in Grand Committee in support of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, and I would like to do the same today. I have at least one question for the Minister. Before coming to it, the arguments produced in Grand Committee about the Chicago convention should now be laid to rest. A more serious argument, perhaps, is whether this is the right place for such an amendment. If the Government are going to say that this is not the right place, they are obliged at least to tell the House where the right place is for an amendment on this topic. In this respect I am, in a sense, picking up the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. It is a matter of serious concern. Noble Lords in all parts of the House are concerned about the good name of the United Kingdom in this matter, as the Minister made clear in Grand Committee, and my noble friend Lord Garden has already referred to it. If the Minister is going to say, "Yes, this is a fair point but not the right place" he is obliged to tell the House what is the right place for such an amendment.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, on her brilliant, succinct presentation of the argument.
	Two things are at stake here, one of which has been well set out by the noble Baroness and by my noble friend Lord Garden: the clear commitment of the United Kingdom Government, time and again, to absolute opposition to torture. I simply remind the House of it by quoting the Prime Minister only a week or so ago. He said:
	"Torture cannot be justified in any set of circumstances at all".
	I think all of us would wish to echo that.
	It is also the case that the United Kingdom was one of the first signatories of the additional protocol to the convention on torture. There was no requirement on us to go ahead and sign that additional protocol. Not only were we among the first three to sign it, but we did so enthusiastically stating our commitment to that concept. What is at stake here—it is an important thing to be at stake—is the good faith of the United Kingdom Government. Also at stake is the role of Parliament.
	These matters were first raised in October 2005 by Members of Parliament, both in this House and in another place, from all parties. The Government were repeatedly questioned and repeatedly they indicated clearly that we had nothing to do with it. The Foreign Secretary, a man, I think, of blunt honesty, said he was "completely unaware" of such flights. The response of the Minister, Adam Ingram, to my right honourable friend suggested that there must have been, at least at the Civil Service level, considerable knowledge of such flights, and also, as my noble friend Lord Garden said, knowledge in the Armed Forces, particularly the Royal Air Force. It is inconceivable that they could not have known about these things, especially given NATS's estimate of 200 flights taking place involving United Kingdom airports.
	In a situation where none of these questions received full or adequate answers from October all the way through to where we are now, there is a question of the relationship of the Government to Parliament.
	My colleagues have said that it is now the Government's responsibility to say how the matter may be best raised in law. I share the view that the Bill may not be an appropriate tool, but it is the only one that we have to hand and it is a matter of such urgency and importance that it is perfectly right for the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, to bring it up in this context.
	Will we now get fuller information? Can we be assured that further questions on the matter will be answered honestly and sincerely on the basis of the facts that the Government have now admitted to be the case? Finally, can the Minister repeat that the United Kingdom has nothing to do in any way with acceding to, associating itself with or facilitating torture under the heading of external rendition, so that we can say to those who have listened to us on the subject of human rights and the convention against torture that this country remains, as it has always been, a champion of those things and has no intention of compromising on that commitment?

Lord Dykes: My Lords, I thank wholeheartedly not only my colleagues but the sponsors of the new clause from other Benches. I support all the arguments that have been deployed so far. I shall add a few brief points of my own, conscious of the fact that I was not in Grand Committee and that the House is now reaching a late hour. However, it is the job of the Minister to give a convincing response—at least intermediate, provisional and pro tem answers—to some serious questions that have been raised in this debate.
	What is happening in Guantanamo Bay and the extraordinary rendition scandal—that is the only word for it—are the two things that cause more unease than any other aspect; not least, the activities of the coalition forces in Iraq, the insurgency, and all that. Therefore, it is a very solemn moment at this stage of this Bill for the Government to reflect soberly about those searing and searching questions. I agree most warmly with the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, in her, as my noble friend Lady Williams said, brilliant explanation of the detail on this matter; and the disturbing aspect also alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis: the United Kingdom gives the impression of compliance and complicity in a matter that is wholly unlawful internationally and should be rejected by a country such as the United Kingdom, which prides itself on its continued adherence to the rule of law.
	I think that I am allowed to say without offending anyone—because there are pluses and minuses in these long histories—that there have been questionable activities by the CIA throughout the world for many decades. We think of South America; we think of Indonesia many years ago; we think of aspects of CIA behaviour elsewhere. That is why we in this House and in the other place are grateful for the vigilance of the British and international press on those matters and the demand for the Americans to change their practices. The answers given by Condoleezza Rice were not answers at all. They were evasions of a true answer. That must be addressed again at the highest levels of the US Administration. That is causing massive concern not only in the United Kingdom but in the other member states of the European Union, especially those who feel that they are being illegally used without their governments knowing anything about it. That is an extraordinary state of affairs that must be dealt with.
	I am glad that the "unlawful rendition" definition is dealt with in one subsection of the new clause, because the adjective itself allows the United Kingdom to make a first step in legal terms to cover itself from being complicit in acts of the United States that are totally illegal under international law. But that is only a first, small step, and more needs to be done. The only way that the United Kingdom can stay within both the international convention on human rights, especially on torture and the use of torture, and the European Convention on Human Rights is to excise and exorcise those practices and insist that our American allies and colleagues—so they are called; and if they are allies and colleagues in the true sense, they will respond to our overtures—outlaw those practices.
	Although I am not an expert observer of the construction and definition of the wording, I am especially minded to be attracted by new subsection (5), which, if the new clause were enacted, allows officers to remove items from planes suspected of unlawful or illegal activities.
	The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, may be correct that perhaps separate primary legislation should be considered, and Third Reading may provide further opportunities to discuss these matters. But, in the meantime, surely it is the duty of the Minister, who is well respected in this House for his very high standard of response, to give us some preliminary reassurances that the Government take this matter very seriously, particularly in view of the United States Government's inadequate explanation and the fact that the names of detainees have disappeared, other names have not been mentioned, and no one knows who these detainees are or where they are in the world. Are they in Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere? Are they in European countries? Have they been sent to Egypt or to other countries? There are rumours that they have been sent to Syria, which sounds extraordinary, bearing in mind the regular United States hostility towards that country. These matters must be dealt with, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some reassurances, at least on a holding basis, this evening.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I support the amendment. In company with many others in both Houses, I called into question and opposed the legal black hole created by the United States at Guantanamo Bay. I asked a good number of questions and had discussions with Ministers in the House on that whole subject, and it was satisfactory when eventually the British citizens were released from Guantanamo Bay. I note that they have not been charged with any offence in this country since their return.
	Rendition is a far worse and more serious matter. It amounts to torture by third party, with absolutely no safeguards whatever. Therefore, in my view, the Government should not condone, deny or simply ignore CIA flights involved in such rendition. I urge the Government to reflect on the experience that this country and successive governments have had in Northern Ireland, where terrorism was eventually brought to an end not by internment or by subjecting individuals to hooding, white noise or stress positions, but by arresting and trying those suspected of terrorist acts and finding them guilty where there was proof. On all those grounds, I support my noble friend Lady D'Souza.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, for re-introducing this topic, which occupied us for a short time in Committee in somewhat frenetic circumstances, as I think the House will recognise. My department was certainly living from hand to mouth when it came to getting information, which inevitably had to come from a number of sources and which in some respects was very difficult to obtain. We all know the reasons for that; there were many contentions, but very little that could be substantiated. So there was difficulty in replying in Committee, but we have moved on from that, and I want to respond as best I can to the points that have been made today.
	I understand the concern expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Dykes and Lord Hylton, about these issues—a concern that was most graphically expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, when she referred to our repugnance for any activities involving torture in which we might inadvertently have been complicit. But this is not Foreign Office Question Time, so I am not here to answer Foreign Office policy in quite those terms. My task is to say whether this legislation, or an amendment to it, would improve the situation. In saying that, I resile in no way from the remarks I made in Committee—far from it. I share with all noble Lords the very great concern that I think the whole country feels about this issue.
	The problem with the clause is that this legislation is concerned with aviation matters. Dealing with a clause which concerns how to deal with extraordinary rendition, or how we would dissuade allies and friendly powers, if they were engaged in such a thing, to desist, is not my business today. My business is whether this amendment would deal with the issue that has been identified, which is of concern to us all, and whether it applies to this legislation.
	My contention is that, of course, there are aspects of work which the Government and the Department for Transport, which is the department on whose behalf I am replying today, can do with regard to aviation matters in order to allay some of the concerns expressed today. I doubt whether I will be able to allay every concern. I recognise that this issue will be raised in other fora with members of the Government in far more responsible and elevated positions than I, who will be able to reply on those general issues. But, on this Bill, the proposed new clause tabled by the noble Baroness will not work.
	Let me explain why. The reason why no action was taken against aircraft involved in unlawful renditions using UK facilities on the ground or travelling through our airspace is simply because there was no credible evidence that that had occurred. We did not have evidence which gave us cause to take action. That has been made clear in Ministerial Statements and PQ Answers. Since this Government came to power, they have authorised the use of UK facilities for two prisoner transfers to the United States where the prisoners were subsequently tried, and they were declined with regard to two other transfers where we did not think that the evidence stood up. It has been widely reported that specific US-registered aircraft, allegedly linked to the CIA, have used UK facilities for renditions. But we have no compelling evidence to suggest that those aircraft have been linked to unlawful activity while in or overflying the United Kingdom.
	The Chicago Convention is clear on this. We certainly have the right to investigate an aircraft, but, of course, we have to have good grounds for doing so. If credible intelligence of serious illegal activity comes to light regarding an aircraft in flight, the Government can certainly require the aircraft to land. Article 3 bis of the Chicago Convention allows states to require aircraft to land if there are reasonable grounds to conclude that the aircraft is being used for any purpose that is inconsistent with the aims of the convention.
	If the aircraft is on the ground the control authorities—police, Customs and immigration—have a variety of powers to enter, take evidence and make arrests. So, under the convention, we have the powers. The question addressed to us is why those powers were not exercised if there had been credible evidence that this was going on. We had no such evidence, which is why action was not taken. I am emphasising that subsection (1) of the proposed clause is unnecessary, because what subsection (1) would empower us to do, we already have the rights and powers to do. Moreover, it will be recognised that from the Prime Minister and down through all ranks of government it is clear that the Government are determined to act if evidence of such activity should ever arise.
	The wider issue of the transportation by air of persons deprived of their liberty—

Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend and I apologise that I was not here in time to participate in the earlier part of the debate. I have looked at the Chicago convention and I am not clear what is the difficulty about looking inside the plane and resolving the question. It would be a very simple operation. Article 16 does not appear to require anything like a vast amount of evidence. If there is any reason to doubt what is going on inside the plane, all you need to do is look.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is assisting me in my argument. I accept that the Chicago convention does permit such action and therefore we do have the power to act, but of course we have to have credible evidence before we dare do so. My noble and learned friend will recognise that if in an arbitrary way we either forced an aircraft to land or investigated an aircraft on what was subsequently shown to be the flimsiest of evidence amounting almost to harassment and interference with other property, we would be open either to claims for compensation or the danger that the sovereign state so afflicted might carry out retaliatory activity on our own aircraft. That is why the evidence must be clear. I thank my noble and learned friend for his intervention and I hope he will accept that I am seeking to sustain the argument that the Chicago convention is helpful.
	On the wider issue of the transportation by air of persons deprived of their liberty, it was addressed in the recent investigation and report made by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. Her Majesty's Government provided a full response to his inquiry, including information on the powers we already have. It is available on the Council of Europe website. The Secretary General's report was issued on 1 March and acknowledges that the United Kingdom provided full answers to all the questions he had put. The Secretary General plans to make proposals, including a review of the current international legal framework for air traffic and the adequacy of safeguards to ensure that aircraft are not used for purposes incompatible with internationally recognised human rights standards. That is exactly the position of the British Government and we will work closely with the Council of Europe on its proposed review. Further, as we are dealing here with international law, any change is more appropriately made on a multilateral basis. So we would prefer to wait for the proposals that have been promised, and if it appears that changes are needed to the current arrangements, we will consider those in the appropriate international fora.
	I return again to the fact that criticism of foreign governments is free and a part of our parliamentary obligations if we think they are acting in a way open to criticism. That is entirely right.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I confess that I am a little puzzled because it appears that Mr Ingram's reply to my right honourable friend Sir Menzies Campbell suggests that his department does have some evidence. He has said specifically that he knows that these particular aircraft did land at two RAF bases, RAF Northolt and RAF Brize Norton. In that light, will questions be raised about whether any more such flights by the United States and the CIA are planned?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I shall turn to that in a moment because I want to reassure noble Lords that we have safeguards in place. First, I shall address the proposed new clause and then I hope to give reassurances on the more general issues which make up the burden of the debate for obvious reasons.
	The clause envisages the simple practicality of forcing a plane to land. There is nothing simple about that. What kind of evidence would we have? If we had the evidence before the plane took off, we would signal that, and prevent use of British airspace. Is anyone seriously contending that, during the hours that the aircraft is in the air, the intelligence services will suddenly be privy to critical evidence that is sufficient for us to deploy aircraft to force down an airliner or whatever kind of aircraft it is? That is not a practicable proposition, but it is in the amendment.

Lord Garden: My Lords, it is not unreasonable to suggest that evidence can arrive at any stage. We already know that commercial aircraft flying to the United States may get turned back because intelligence comes about the nature of the passengers. Are we not signatories to the Tokyo convention? When we signed article 4, we must have conceived that it was possible that we might have to interfere with an aircraft as it transited through UK airspace, because it was necessary,
	"to ensure the observance of any obligation of such State under a multilateral international agreement".
	To say that this is impossible seems strange. Can the Minister explain how he reaches that conclusion?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am identifying that forcing an aircraft down is an extreme necessity, which will not be done on hearsay or generalised evidence but on the basis of a clear body of evidence that gives rise to the concern. All I am saying is that it is highly unlikely that such critical evidence will emerge in the space of a couple of hours during which an aircraft is in flight. Consequently, either we would signal that the aircraft was not to be permitted to enter British airspace long before the issue arose or—though it is scarcely credible—we would deploy force against an aircraft from a state that might be friendly or even neutral on the grounds that we had suspicions.
	On the "Today" programme this morning, the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, addressed the question of whether an aircraft ought to be forced to land. She said that if it was slightly suspected that an unlawful rendition was taking place, the aircraft ought to be forced down. We would have to have a higher threshold than "slightly suspected". Forcing down an aircraft of another state is an extreme action and we could not warrant intervention of that kind without significant evidence. Were the aircraft from an unfriendly state, or a state prone to be unfriendly, retaliation might result. Were it from a friendly state, we would almost certainly be involved in significant compensation for such an action.

Lord Roper: My Lords, before the Minister leaves that point, would he not accept that, not too long ago, a significant number of British Airways aircraft which were due to fly to the United States were forbidden to take off because of intelligence that had arisen in relation to those who were boarding the aircraft? It does not therefore seem impossible that these sorts of things could occur.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, while, as I have indicated, we have powers, these apply before the aircraft have taken off. I am trying to address myself to the new clause, which says that we should have power to take action when the aircraft is airborne and in British airspace. All that I am indicating is that that is a pretty unrealistic scenario when we are considering serious evidence about a particular abuse.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister accept that if we had intelligence of a terrorist raid of the type that hit on 9/11, the RAF would force the plane down? Are we not envisaging this?

Lord Davies of Oldham: We are, my Lords, if we have the intelligence. We have never denied that aeroplanes from the United States have flown in and out of the UK, some of them using RAF bases. That is well known and entirely normal. If it were suspected that illegalities were being carried out on such aircraft—that would apply to any state, not any particular state—we would need very serious and convincing evidence to force an aircraft down. That is a highly unlikely eventuality, given the nature of the evidence that would be necessary.
	If the House will allow me to move on, I have a slightly more positive stance to take than the one I have had to adopt up to now. My task is to try to convince the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, not to press her amendment. The Government are seriously exercised about these issues. We have made it clear to the US authorities in recent months that we expect them to seek permission to render detainees via UK territory and air space, and that includes overseas territories. Secondly, we will grant permission only if we are satisfied that the rendition would accord with UK law and our international obligations. Thirdly, we have made it clear to the United States how we understand the UK's obligations under the UN convention against torture and the European Convention on Human Rights. We in turn are clear that the US would not render a detainee through UK territory or air space, including our overseas territories, without our permission.
	My conclusion is this: of course I recognise the widespread concern about this issue—that has been evidenced in the debate. But the new clause would not serve a practical purpose. We have the powers to deal with aircraft if we need to. We can deal with aircraft on the ground if we suspect that a crime has been committed and is against national law. Any changes to international law that may be identified as desirable are best debated and resolved through international fora, not through UK law.
	Of course I share the anxieties that have been expressed this evening. I hope the House will recognise that we have been forthright about this matter. We are satisfied that we have the powers to deal with it. We have also made it clear, in the one case in which we have expressed anxiety—namely, the allegations that the United States has been involved in this activity—just where we stand under our obligations under international law. If the United States proposed to use British air space or British facilities of any kind, it would have to seek our permission and we would seek reassurance that it was acting in accordance with international law.

Lord Garden: My Lords, I seek clarification. The argument seems slightly different from that which we heard in Grand Committee. The Minister is now accepting that we have the powers. Does he still hold to the position that these provisions, since they in some way repeat in a different form powers that he has told us exist, would wreck the Bill if they were included?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I have changed my position from Committee—I accept that entirely—but I think that noble Lords recognised that in Committee I was limited by the difficulty of getting information at that stage. We have looked at the Chicago Convention and its implications much more closely and, over the past few months, we have been able to investigate the nature of the allegations and what validity they have.
	I am seeking to convince the House, first, that we are determined to be clear exactly where the UK stands on this issue with regard to the United States; and, secondly, that the Bill already has provisions to deal with all the suggestions made in this proposed clause of powers that we should take up. The amendment would not wreck the Bill but it would not add anything to the powers that we have, so it would not be constructive in giving additional help to solve the problem. The bigger issue lies on the international front. The noble Lord will recognise that we never put into Bills anything that is otiose or superfluous, because we want all our legislation to be as perfect as the other place and this House can make them.

Lord Garden: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for clarifying the position. He will recall that in Grand Committee part of the point was that, given the international opprobrium attached to extraordinary rendition, we were in a very fortunate position that the Bill had arrived at the right time for the Government to show to the world how they felt. Since the Minister has now said that the amendment would not wreck the Bill and that the powers that it proposes are not different from powers that are already there, could he finally tell us why he does not think that this is a signal that his Government would like to send?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, there are two reasons. First, we do not put into Bills anything that is superfluous just as some kind of gesture or indication of intent. Law is about enforcement and conditioning behaviour. If we already have powers to do something, we do not add to them, otherwise we would have Bills that were simply accruals of additional concepts on all legislation. That is not how we draft legislation.
	Secondly, if the noble Lord is suggesting that this is a fortuitous opportunity for the most junior member of the Department for Transport to demonstrate the Government's position and their abhorrence of extraordinary rendition and the possible infringement of international law on torture, all that I can say is that my humble gesture would pale into insignificance compared with the statements made by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and other members of the Government. So it will not do to say, "This Bill is your chance"; much as I might like to seize it, that is not how we construct legislation.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his patience and ingenuity. I wish to pursue a slightly different point. Exactly where are the terms to be found in which we are saying to other countries, including the United States, that we wish them to seek permission before we agree to make facilities available to them? In other words, is there any form of understanding that the Minister could point us to that is publicly known and that has been recently repeated between ourselves and those other countries?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I cannot give the precise reference on that, but I do not stand at this Dispatch Box and make statements on behalf of the Government without due regard to the fact that that is exactly how we are acting. The noble Baroness has asked an entirely appropriate question, but I cannot give the detailed answer, which I believe would be fairly complex. But I shall write to her on that point, as I recognise its importance.
	I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, will at least be able to speak at this stage—and possibly withdraw her amendment.

Baroness D'Souza: My Lords, I warmly thank noble Lords who have supported the amendment and quickly follow that up by warmly thanking the Minister for his considered response to the speeches put forward to support the amendment. Much of what he said is very encouraging, particularly that he will take into account the recommendations of the Council of Europe when they come, and seek to ensure that UK practice, let alone law, is strictly in conformity with the recommendations that are put forward.
	I am also happy to learn of the current negotiations with the United States, in particular centring on the question of asking permission for any future flights that may use UK airfield facilities.
	There are, however, unresolved issues surrounding this amendment and the much more important issue of extraordinary rendition. As I understand it, the Minister is saying at the moment that the Government are unaware of the fact of extraordinary rendition because there is no proof. I suggest that there is such a large amount of circumstantial evidence and suspicion, and at the same time so many inquiries taking place, that in the short term one may well be able to come up with a great deal of evidence that would suggest that the UK, among other European countries, as the Minister has said, is inadvertently facilitating a degree of extraordinary rendition.
	In view of the fact that there are unresolved issues, and that there is a great deal the Minister has said that I would like to look at in more detail and consult with my colleagues about, I give notice that I might wish to bring this issue up again on Third Reading. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 24:
	After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—
	"PETS PASSPORT SCHEME AND GUIDE DOGS
	(1) The Secretary of State shall introduce a scheme by which the clearance costs of the Pets Passport Scheme for guide dogs and other assistance dogs travelling by air shall be met by airlines.
	(2) For the purposes of this section—
	(a) a "guide dog" is a dog trained and accredited to provide mobility assistance to a blind or partially sighted person,
	(b) an "assistance dog" is one which has been specifically trained and accredited to assist a disabled person.
	(3) Regulations shall provide for the recognition of guide and assistance dogs from other states."

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I am pleased we are getting back to the proper business of this legislation. Amendment No. 24 requires the Secretary of State to introduce a scheme to share the clearance costs of guide and assistance dogs travelling under the pets passport scheme. It proposes that those costs will be shared among airline operators in proportion to the number of passengers carried through the PETS-approved airport by an individual airline.
	The pets passport scheme—or PETS, as it is commonly known—is administered by Defra, and has operated since February 2000. Under the terms of the scheme pet dogs, including guide dogs, assistance dogs and other small animals can be brought into the UK and specified countries without having to enter them into quarantine, subject to certain qualifications. That means that people in the UK can take their dog to one of those specified countries and then bring it back to the UK without having to enter it into quarantine. Obviously there are certain costs attached to the scheme, which are payable by the animal's owner—rabies vaccinations and health insurance, to name but a couple. Central to this amendment, however, are those costs necessary to administer the clearance of an animal coming back into the UK under the PETS scheme.
	In April 2004, the main British charter and schedule airlines agreed to allow guide dogs and other assistance dogs to be carried into the cabin of an aircraft on PETS-approved routes into the UK. However, certain rules and conditions apply, and at present the only airports with the facilities to accept animals under PETS are Heathrow, Gatwick and Manchester. On arrival at one of those airports, a guide dog and owner will be met on disembarkation by an official from the animal reception centre and cleared for entry into the UK under the pets passport scheme.
	As a result of recent work by the guide dogs charity and Defra, a number of UK airlines have agreed to waive the costs of clearing guide dogs under the pets passport scheme. Despite this progress, however, some airlines still pass on a proportion of the cost to the customer. At Gatwick and Manchester those costs can exceed £100, while at Heathrow there is no charge. At Question Time recently in this House the point was brought up that a certain number of passengers with visual impairment were refused to fly on Ryanair. There are all sorts of question that need to be answered by this scheme, and I am pleased to be putting this amendment forward with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who I am sure will speak to it. I beg to move.

Lord Carter: My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to this amendment, and to give the Government a chance to put on the record what the situation is with regard to the European Union. My noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, with a copy to me, describing the situation in the EU, and it would be helpful to have it on the record.
	There apparently is an EU proposal for regulation concerning the rights of disabled persons when they travel by air. Article 8 of that regulation requires airlines to provide certain forms of assistance to disabled people without specific charge, one of which is a requirement to carry recognised assistance dogs free of charge in the aircraft cabin, subject to national regulations. What is the meaning of "national regulations"? What is the vehicle for those regulations? Is it this Bill? Looking at it, it is hard to see where that could be done. I hope that it can. Is it the 1982 Act? I assume that the Government will ensure before Third Reading that they have the vehicle that they require to table those regulations.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, and my noble friend Lord Carter for bringing us back to the Bill, as it were.
	The amendment proposes the introduction of a scheme by which clearance costs for guide dogs and other assistance dogs entering the UK by air under the pets passport scheme, or pets travel scheme as it is otherwise known in the UK, would be met by airlines. The Government have given the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, and my noble friend Lord Carter careful consideration and have concluded that its aims can be achieved without an amendment to the Civil Aviation Bill. Before I explain the reasons in detail, let me say that the Government recognise the excellent work that is carried out by the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and other assistance dog organisations in promoting the interests of their members and the welfare of guide and assistance dogs. Those bodies have worked closely and fruitfully with the Government in the past and will, I am sure, continue to do so.
	The pet passport scheme permits the entry of dogs, including guide and other assistance dogs, into the UK without the need for quarantine, as the noble Lord said, provided they meet certain rules. It has proved popular since its launch six years ago. It has also been welcomed by guide and other assistance dog owners who can—many do—travel abroad with their dogs. The pet passport scheme is adopted by all EU countries under legislation that came into force in July 2003 and applied in July 2004. That legislation sets down the certification requirements for all dogs and cats moving between EU countries and into the EU from other countries. The UK checks all animals coming in, whether they come from the EU or elsewhere, because, along with a number of other member states, it has a special derogation, which will be reviewed by the European Commission in 2007. The derogation requires animals to be blood tested and to be treated for ticks and tapeworms before entry. The UK clearance checks are there to ensure that there is compliance with those extra rules. I should add that, under European law, all member states are required to check all animals coming in from outside the EU at the point of entry.
	When animals enter the UK by air, they will, in most cases, travel as cargo in the hold of the aircraft. However, under the pet passport scheme airlines may allow assistance dogs to travel in the cabin with their owner. Indeed, under the proposed EC regulation on air passenger rights for disabled people and people with reduced mobility, it will be a requirement for assistance dogs to be permitted to travel in the cabin. Where the dog is in the cabin, the owner and their dog are met on arrival by staff who check that the dog meets the requirements of the pet passport scheme. That ensures that throughout the journey and on landing the owner is not separated from their assistance dog.
	The airline may charge the owner for carrying out the pet passport checks. Whether it does so is currently a matter for the airline itself—as the noble Lord said, some do, some do not—and any company that it sub-contracts to carry out the checks on its behalf rather than government. I am sure that the noble Lord is aware of that. However, in the case of assistance dogs, some airlines waive the charges altogether.
	Indeed, guidelines drawn up by the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, in conjunction with a number of UK airlines, recommend that assistance dog owners should not be charged directly for those clearance costs.
	I recognise that the aim of the amendment was to make it a legal requirement for those costs to be met by airlines. It appears to me, however, that provisions in the proposed EC regulation that I mentioned should make an amendment to the Civil Aviation Bill unnecessary. Article 8 of that regulation would require airlines to provide certain forms of assistance to disabled people without charge, one of which is to carry recognised assistance dogs free of charge in the aircraft cabin, subject to national regulations, and I will come to the question that my noble friend gave me notice of in a moment. That obligation should be capable of being construed so as to include all measures necessary to allow for the carriage of assistance dogs needed by disabled passengers, including clearance checks under the pets passport scheme. The Government gave priority to progressing that proposal during our recent presidency of the European Union. It has wide support from disability groups, and it provides a suitable framework for the carriage of assistance dogs into the UK. It has already been agreed by the European Parliament, and we expect it to be adopted without further debate at a forthcoming Council meeting.
	I have in front of me a number of reasons why the amendment is technically flawed which, given the hour, we will not go into tonight. In view of the European legislation that I have just discussed, which addresses discrimination against disabled people, I hope that my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, will agree that an amendment to the Civil Aviation Bill is not necessary and will withdraw the amendment.
	I shall briefly address the question from my noble friend Lord Carter, who asked about national regulations. Article 8 of the proposed EU regulations that I have just been talking about requires airlines to provide certain forms of assistance to disabled people, which includes a requirement to carry recognised assistance dogs free of charge, subject to member states' national regulations. In the United Kingdom, those regulations are the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other Mammals) Order 1974, as amended, covering animals being imported into rabies quarantine, and the Non-Commercial Movement of Pet Animals (England) 2004, Schedule 1 of which sets out conditions of approval for air carriers to participate in the UK's pets travel scheme. That includes checking requirements and assurances that the animals are transported in an appropriate part of the aircraft and in appropriate conditions. It is an EU regulation that subsumes UK regulations. I ask noble Lords to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. I will analyse it, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will, before Third Reading. We all have the same desire, which is to make this workable for people with disabilities. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 26:
	After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—
	"REDUCTION OF AIRSIDE EMISSIONS
	(1) With effect from 1st January 2009 aerodromes with more than 50,000 movements a year by subsonic jet aircraft with a maximum take-off mass of 34,000kg or more, or with more than 19 passenger seats, are required to make available Fixed Electrical Ground Power and Preconditioned Air Units at all Aircraft Stands.
	(2) Aircraft must use Fixed Electrical Ground Power and Preconditioned Air Units at all times when stationary at aircraft stands.
	(3) With effect from 1st January 2009 aerodromes with more than 50,000 movements a year by subsonic jet aircraft with a maximum take-off mass of 34,000kg or more, or with more than 19 passenger seats, are required to have replaced or converted 50 per cent of their airside vehicle fleet to run on low carbon fuels."

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I want to move this amendment, even in view of the late hour. It is a new amendment, which emerged from a turkey lunch at Christmas with my nephew, who works for a Scandinavian airline. He thought that his ideas should be known, and he had been trying to talk to the officials, not knowing that I was doing this job. That is how the amendment arose. I will go into a little bit of detail; I am only trying to be helpful.
	Only recently, the Prime Minister himself acknowledged that climate change was the biggest threat facing our planet. It is therefore particularly important for us to consider that aviation emissions rose by 12 per cent in the past year and now account for 11 per cent of Britain's total greenhouse gas emissions—by far the fastest-growing sector. Moreover, environmentalists argue that greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft have increased by 73 per cent since 1990 and are on course to have grown by 150 per cent by 2012.
	In Grand Committee, the Minister made it clear that the Government viewed aviation as an international industry and were prepared to tackle the serious issue of aviation's impact on climate change only with reference to the aviation industry's incorporation into the EU emissions trading scheme. Much was made of the Minister's responses, because we had the extra leverage that the UK Government had at that stage in their EU presidency. Has there been any further progress since our presidency on some of those European issues?
	It is important not to forget that the problem of aviation-related air pollution has local as well as global consequences. My noble friend Lady Hanham touched on that when we debated health issues earlier.
	The amendment is designed to address the problem by presenting practical measures that build on current good practice and offer a tangible way to reduce airside emissions. Subsection (1) requires that, by 1 January 2009, the largest airports with over 50,000 movements a year make available fixed electrical ground power (FEGP) and pre-conditioned air at all their aircraft stands. Many airport operators already provide fixed electrical ground power; however, the additional requirement to provide pre-conditioned air means that there will be no reason to require the use of the aircraft's auxiliary power unit.
	All aircraft have an APU—all the technical stuff emerged from Christmas lunch—that provides power for the aircraft's systems and air conditioning while on the ground. APUs run on kerosene and that, as well as being extremely noisy, contributes to the volume of airside emissions. However, if an aircraft can receive its electrical power and conditioned air from an aircraft stand, it will be able to draw its power requirement from the national grid. That in turn means that the fossil fuel-burning APU can be switched off, directly reducing ground-level noise and air pollution.
	In Scandinavia, it is already a legal requirement that airports supply aircraft with electrical ground power. In fact, at Arlanda airport in Stockholm, APUs are allowed to be used for a maximum of only 10 minutes while the aircraft is on the ground, and ground staff are not allowed to approach the aircraft until the FEGP has been connected and the APU switched off. Furthermore, the airport includes the cost of FEGP usage in its landing charges, providing a valuable financial incentive. In Denmark, that practice has been taken a stage further: The FEGP units are connected to a central computer system and, if they are not used within three minutes of an aircraft's "on chocks" arrival time, a fine is automatically generated.
	Subsection (2) is designed to ensure that, once FEGP and preconditioned air have been provided at aircraft stands, aircraft are compelled to use them. In effect, that gives statutory force to the CAA's existing recommendations, which state:
	"Where FEGP units are provided on stands they should be used in preference to other forms of auxiliary power".
	In addition to reducing airside emissions, the use of FEGP is cost-effective for both the airport and the airline operators. A report from the United States by the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) indicated that airport operators there had found the payback period to be relatively short—less than two years. From the airlines' perspective, I think that we can take the fact that Ryanair, that most cost-conscious of airlines, insists on using FEGP wherever possible as evidence of it being the most economical option.
	Subsection (3) refers to airside vehicles, another important source of air pollutants. It requires that, by 1 January 2009, larger airports with annual movements of over 50,000 passengers will have replaced or converted 50 per cent of their airside vehicle fleet to run on low carbon fuels.
	This initiative has already been championed at Heathrow by BAA and much of Heathrow's own vehicle fleet now runs on alternative, low-carbon fuels. The use of cleaner fuels can dramatically improve the air quality for those who live or work in or close to airports.
	In Committee, the Minister commented that,
	"airport operators do not have statutory powers enabling them to control emissions from airport vehicles".—[Official Report, 5/12/05; col. GC66.]
	It is high time that they did. This amendment provides for that opportunity. There are examples both of airports and of airline operators that are commendably already pursuing these initiatives. As with government thinking on penalty schemes, which we debated previously, we must use this opportunity to give those already leading the way the cover of legislation and those left behind a statutory obligation to adopt these best practices. The new clause provides two sensible measures with realistic timescales that offer a simple way of tackling the problem of aviation-related air pollution at a level that can make a tangible difference to people's lives. I beg to move.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, subsection (3) in the amendment talks about airside vehicles, which I believe are being driven around on red diesel. I have just one question: does green red diesel—if one can have that—exist?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for proposing this amendment. Inspiration comes at strange times and from strange quarters. The amendment shows the commonality of aims between us. I share his view of the necessity of ensuring a reduction in emissions that can contribute to pollutant concentrations in the vicinity of airports. I am only thankful that my noble friend Lord Soley is not here; if he were, his hobby horse would without doubt be run even later into the small hours of the morning.
	Of course it is important that we reduce carbon emissions that bear on climate change and produce pollutant concentrations. The Government take both these topics very seriously. They have established air quality standards under the UK objectives that apply around airports, as they do at other locations where people may be exposed to harmful ambient concentrations. Ambient air quality requirements are not source-specific, so technical standards apply to various sources, such as road vehicles and aircraft engines. These are reviewed and tightened on a periodic basis as technology advances permit. On climate change and aviation, the noble Lord will of course recognise that the Government seek inclusion of aviation within the European emissions trading scheme, on which we expect to make progress. We already maintain pressure for tighter emission standards and support industry work to advance fuel efficiency.
	There is no doubt that, at airports, airside emissions, whether from aircraft auxiliary power units—the small jet engines to which the noble Lord referred, no doubt on technical advice from another quarter—or from the fleets of airside vehicles servicing aircraft, represent a small but not insignificant percentage of total airport emissions. We think that the figure is between 10 and 15 per cent. This needs to be and is being addressed in various ways, and the noble Lord is right to draw attention to it.
	I should stress that airports and airlines are highly sensitised to these issues on account of the need both to reduce emissions and to minimise fuel costs. On the question of fuel costs, the noble Earl is right: there is no green red diesel. If he wants to see improvements in emissions from fuel-consuming vehicles airside, we will have to look at improving technology. Larger airports have instigated programmes to address stand emissions and those from airside vehicle fleets. Emissions reductions from aircraft at the stand and from airside vehicles are targeted by the industry by means of the sustainable aviation strategy, which was published in June last year.
	Fixed ground power, which was the burden of the noble Lord's argument, using evidence of what happens in Scandinavia—although not just in Scandinavia, I understand—is increasingly being introduced in order to minimise the use of APUs while aircraft are on stand. It is now more or less standard at our large airports, except on some of the more remote stands, and it tends to be incorporated into any airport terminal developments. As we see certain aspects of airports develop, the noble Lord will be reassured that this feature is part of them.
	The measure has a significant beneficial effect on emissions at airports by limiting the APU running time to shorter periods after arrival and just before departure. It should be recognised, however, that FEGP only partially addresses the carbon issue as, inevitably, there will be emissions from electricity power generation. Nevertheless, I am not seeking to decry the obvious advantages that arise from greater use of FEGP. It should be noted that it would not be possible to avoid the use of APUs at the stand as these are needed to stabilise the aircraft's systems prior to "push back" from the stand and to provide main engine start power, so we cannot dispense with them altogether.
	Pre-conditioned air is a harder issue to deal with for a number of reasons. It is more practicable to use it on stands for longer turnarounds—that is, medium and longer-range aircraft—as connection is not straightforward. It necessitates more serious air-bridge engineering and is very costly. The benefits of PCA are most obvious when ambient temperatures are sufficiently high or low to need adjusting to our comfort zone. That inevitably means that in our temperate climate there will be a significant portion of the year when the use of PCA is unnecessary or becomes marginal. Unfortunately, that undermines the economic case for the investment of the system. That said, following PCA trials by BAA at Heathrow, it is being fitted to A380 stands in the central terminal area and will be on all jetty stands at Terminal 5 when it opens. At some other airports, PCA may be at the feasibility stage of consideration, but generally its use is not being progressively rolled out. There are difficulties in this area, but airside vehicle programmes are firmly in the emissions plans of all major airports.
	The noble Lord will recognise that there is a certain Heathrow quality to this argument because it is by far our biggest airport and that is where most progress is being made—and needs to be made—at present. I am at one with the objectives that the noble Lord puts forward in his amendment, but we believe that the control of airside emissions should remain voluntary. We have every reason to believe that the industry is taking a responsible attitude. I hope that the noble Lord will see from my short exposition of progress thus far that he can share our optimism on that front and that he will therefore feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that answer. He obviously agreed with all the points that were made. It is just a question of whether we follow the Scandinavian principles by putting this into legislation. We have had several discussions today about the amount of regulation and legislation that we need on these matters. I thank the Minister for his answer. I shall withdraw the amendment today and reflect on it for the next stage, but I am grateful for the points that he made and will convey them back to my nephew. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 14 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
	[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendment No. 28:
	Page 12, line 33, at end insert—
	"( ) But an order under subsection (3) may not provide for subsections (2) to (4) of section 2 to come into force before 1st June 2012."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
	Schedule 1 [Policing of airports]:

Baroness Crawley: moved Amendment No. 30:
	Page 15, line 30, at end insert—
	"( ) any person (other than the manager of the aerodrome) who is required to take any measures in relation to the aerodrome pursuant to a direction given under section 12, 13, 13A or 14 of this Act,"

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, in Grand Committee we amended the Bill to make changes to the provisions of the Aviation Security Act 1982 regarding policing at airports. Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 make a minor clarifying change to one of the new provisions inserted into that Act by Schedule 1 to this Bill.
	Paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 inserts a new Section 25A into the Aviation Security Act 1982, regarding consultation about the policing of airports. Section 25A(6) defines "relevant information" for the purposes of the section, by reference to the people who are qualified to provide it; for example, the manager of the airport, the chief police officer of the area concerned, the Secretary of State or Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs.
	Parties who have been directed by the Secretary of State under Part II of the Aviation Security Act 1982 are also a source of relevant information. To include these persons, new Section 25A(6) cross-refers to new Section 25A(3)(a), which defines them. However, new Section 25A(4) empowers the Secretary of State to modify the application of new Section 25A(3)(a) to a particular airport. If this power were to be used, it is possible that the current cross-reference might be unhelpful and that information from directed parties might no longer be included within the definition of relevant information.
	In the interests of clarity, therefore, Amendment No. 30 replaces the cross-reference in Section 25A(6) with a full description of those who may provide relevant information. Amendment No. 31 removes the current wording. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Crawley: moved Amendment No. 31:
	Page 15, leave out line 33.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Bill [HL]

The Bill was returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the amendment was considered and agreed to.
	House adjourned at seventeen minutes past ten o'clock.